Revolutions and Violence As previously mentioned, ISIS is fighting in Syria and other areas of the Middle East in an effort to establish Sharia Law. With that being the case, it seems ISIS can also be consider to be participating in a revolutionary effort. However, revolution is another action that comes with philosophical complexities attached. Whether revolutions are justifiable or not seems to be a debate that directly affects thinking about ISIS’s actions in Syria. Another well-respected philosopher, Kant and a philosopher and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Junior put forth different beliefs when it comes to the justification of revolutions. Kant believes revolutions are never justifiable. His reasoning for that position comes …show more content…
His perspective is largely based on making the distinctions that were discussed in the Noncombatant Immunity section. Waltzer states that terrorism is most often used to describe revolutionary violence. He asserts that randomness is a key feature of terrorism because it is essential to one of the intentions of terrorism, which is to spread fear. Waltzer later defines terrorism as the random murder of innocent people as a strategy of revolutionary struggle. For Waltzer the main distinction between terrorism and revolutionary violence is whether aim is taken in a certain fashion. He argues that appropriate aim is targeting “particular people because of thing they have done or are doing.” Whereas, inappropriate aim, which he believes is the aim of terrorist, is targeting “whole groups of people, indiscriminately, because of who they are.” Overall, Waltzer suggest that terrorism is reprehensible because it falls outside the political code, which recognizes principles such as noncombatant immunity, that is in place. Waltzer view also seems to be rooted the traditional conception of sovereignty, which leads him to put forth a view that suggest terrorism is a civilian strategy and that when states use terroristic tactics they are engaging in something different. This can be referred to as pro-state bias, which is concept that will be discussed more in Coady’s …show more content…
Coady’s definition again seems to revolve around the distinctions being made by the noncombatant immunity principle. In fact, Coady states that by his definition, terrorism is always wrong because it violates that noncombatant immunity principle. Coady believes his definition is contentious because by it states can engage in terrorism. That is a notion that goes against the concept of pro-state bias that was referred to earlier. Coady believe that many philosopher hold states immune from engaging in terrorism if certain circumstance (supreme emergencies) are present. Coady states that this is a view put forth by Waltzer. Essentially, what Coady is getting at is some people believe there are certain exceptions that allow terrorism to be justified. One of those exceptions is supreme emergency, which are condition so dire that it seems the moral constraints against terrorism fall away. However, Coady believes that the supreme emergency exception shows pro-state bias and he
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
By understanding these, one can come up with a working definition of revolution and the similarities between the two conflicts, which span over 150 years between the two. To understand both conflicts, one must first understand that revolution is not a single event. It is instead a process. The goal of revolution is the redistribution of wealth and economic power. In both cases the battles waged in both wars were waged for these reasons and in both cases the seeds for these revolutions had been planted long before the conflicts themselves.
A revolution takes place when a group does not agree with the current government and the policies they have in place. In some cases, revolutions turn violent during the attempt to overthrow the government. This is exactly what took place during the French Revolution, 1789 and the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917. Overall both revolutions found the beginning in the poor. The poor struggled under the rule of the monarchy; there was a strain on resources and high taxes. There were famine and food shortages due to bad weather, and WW1 respectively. In France, the nobility, first and second estates, did not have to pay these high taxes which further angered the poor. Both French and Russian nobility and monarchy were to blame for the suffering experienced. In the French and Bolshevik Revolutions there were philosophical ideas that guided the people to put a stop to their suffering, these ideas fueled extremist groups that brought upon violence and overall the goal of these Revolutions were not permanent. French and Bolshevik Revolutions had revolutionary ideas that went hand in hand with revolutionary violence and ultimately left the countries in chaos for some time after.
Categorical terrorism, according to Jeff Goodwin, is defined as “the strategic use of violence and threats of violence, usually intended to influence several audiences, by oppositional political groups against civilian or noncombatants who belong to a specific entity, religious or national group, social class or some other collectivity, without regard to their individual identities or roles.” More so, in terms of definition, according to a study done by Jeffrey Record in 2003, there was a count of over 109 definitions of terrorism, covering 22 different categorical elements. During the 70s and 80s, the United Nations struggled to define the term, finally coming up with the following definition: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
Also acknowledging the fact That revolution means having a dramatic change. I believe that there were a lot of dramatic changes in the 1960s. However, I don’t. believe that this revolution started in the Sixties because it is my belief that it had started in the late 50’s but it was catalysed by the Second World War.
Which means all people, not giving thought to any struggle in the past. A revolution is a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. As stated before, society changed, but the social structure of the society did not. When observing historical context, this can be a revolution because social structures either reverted back to the old ways then changed to an extent.
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the word revolution is defined as "the usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one." The word revolutionary means "relating to, involving, or supporting a political revolution."
Michael Walzer is an esteemed retired professor from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Walzer has written many books, essays, and articles. His essay, Excusing Terror, is one that best relates to the current events happening around the world. In this essay, Walzer talks about different reasons that people would want to resort to terrorism. In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one.
Revolutions are justified means of change because they help to motivate and inspire people to press for rights that in turn will benefit the country and future generations as a whole. Most revolutions occur because of widespread dissatisfaction with an existing system. Poverty and injustice under cruel, corrupt, or incapable rulers combined with social problems is a recipe for disaster. One can only push people so far. If other ways of establishing the changes that must be made do not work, then creating a revolution might be the only option left.
The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as
The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism as, “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological”. Whereas the Belgium Red Cross says that terrorism is committed “for the purpose of intimidating the population, forcing a third party to act or destablishing or destroying the fundamental structures of a country or of an international organization”.
Terrorism definitions are difficult to solidify mainly because of the overwhelming differences in perspectives. After review of 18 U.S. Code § 2331 certain dialect and shared commonalities have led to my own definition of terrorism which I define as; any activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of criminal laws enacted by a sovereign region, for the purpose of policy change or gains through implementation of fear, directed towards non-participating entities. Tony Duheaume a critic and author which has spent over forty years following political and civil events in the Middle East, depicts events from his article, “Understanding Hezbollah’s history as a ‘proxy of Iran’” from the Al Arabiya English website concerning acts of terrorism which Hezbollah has claimed responsibility
A revolution is a mass movement that intends to violently transform the old government into a new political system. The Iranian Revolution, which began in 1979 after years of climax, was an uprising against the Shah’s autocratic rule resulting in much religious and political change. Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi made efforts to remove Islamic values and create a secular rule and “westernize” Iran through his White Revolution. In addition, his tight dictatorial rule and attempts at military expansion felt threatening to the people, who desired a fairer governmental rule immensely influenced by Islam. Afterwards, governmental affairs became extremely influenced by Islamic traditions and law which created changes religiously and politically for years to come. Although the Iranian Revolution was both a political and religious movement in that it resulted in major shifts in government structure from an autocracy to a republic and that Islamic beliefs were fought to be preserved, it was more a religious movement in that the primary goal of the people was to preserve traditional ideology and in that the government became a theocracy intertwined with religious laws and desires of the people.
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,
In this world there are many different topics of controversy. With every controversial topic comes different views and arguments explaining why people believe what they do. There are problems that can be just within one country or throughout the entire world. Terrorism affects everyone in the world, specifically us as Americans, which is why it is one of the biggest controversial topics. Of course with a topic as big as terrorism, there are emic and etic perspectives involved. With past history, there are specific countries and religions that we think of when we hear the word terrorism, specifically Afghanistan, located in the Middle East and the Muslim religion in that general area. Being part of the American