The paper would analyze the definitions for terrorism proposed by some authors deeply along with criticizing them and proposing a global definition of terrorism. Secondly, “the concept of ‘just war theory’ would also be evaluated by highlighting its limitations. And finally, just war theory concept would be applied on the recent military action in Afghanistan, whether it fits the scenario or not.
There are hundreds of definitions of terrorism defined by many authors, journalists, and politicians. But the problem is that the idea or concept of what terrorism actually is, is vague and not perceived globally as a single concept. The definition proposed by Lawless revolves around three key words; violence political purpose, and non-state actor. It goes this way, “the unlawful threat or act of violence committed for a political purpose by a non-state actor” (Lawless, 2007). This definition seems to be quite rigid and inflexible because it says that terrorism happens only because of political purposes by the non-state actors. In fact, terrorism does not always take place due to political purposes; for instance, these days, countries themselves want to get rid of terrorism that is overwhelming them and worsening their relationships with other countries. There is no doubt that non-state actors are mostly involved in terrorism, but they usually do so for purposes such as, smuggling, harassing the legal authorities who try to resist them, and certain mafias or groups who want to take revenge of any injustice done to them before or being done.
Secondly, the definition does not highlight the idea about the innocent people or victims. Terrorism for political purposes means that riots or revenges are taken for their own sake, purpose, and benefit. The global definition that I propose is that ‘any unlawful or illegal act done to hurt, damage, or overwhelm the party who is innocent and was not involved in any conspiracy or threatening act against the party who is hurting them’.
See more: introduction paragraph example
Answer – 2
Just war theory proposes the idea that lies between permissivism and pacifism. Permissivism suggests using arms as many as wanted and as the way the armed forces want to; whereas, pacifism says not to use arms against civilians or innocent people but to kill those who deserve to be killed. Therefore, just war theory says that war must be fought when it is fair or when there is a reason to be fought with the enemies or for a legitimate cause (Wilson, 2006). There are certain limitations of this theory such as, it does not define what a ‘legitimate’ cause actually is and when is it just or fair to attack the enemy (mtholyoke.edu, n.d). Therefore, countries or parties always think of their own interest and consider their cause as a legitimate one and considerable to attack the enemy, even they may be wrong at their side. Moreover, not killing civilians is just a saying; armed forces often kill and harass the civilians such as, kidnapping them, and smuggling them, etc. So, from here, the desire to take revenge arises in the other party and the issue never resolves, in fact it goes on. I think the idea of just war theory must be reconceptualized.
Answer – 3
The recent military action against Afghanistan does not fit on the concept of just war theory because the American started the raid against them without having solid evidence against them. Moreover, they did not only killed the Afghan terrorists, but also took lives of thousands of innocent people including children, women, and aged ones. They brutally destroyed their houses, properties, lands, lives, and everything.