International Terrorism and Global Politics Essay

In the twenty-first century, it would seem that the term terrorist has become an completely told embrace description of any one whom civilized people feel is a threat to innocent noncombatants, domestic tranquility, and the everyday brio that most people take for granted. G everywherenment officials guard war on terrorism and the like. Expanding upon, and deviating from the typical exposition of a terrorist, Charles W.Kegleys 2002 edition, The New Global terrorist act Characteristics, Causes, Controls, contains a chapter entitled Is There a trustworthy Terrorist? , which asserts that one dry lands terrorist may fairly be considered a nonher nations patriot. This authorship testament maintain the blood that no terrorist is a legal terrorist, in contrast to the presentation of Kegley in his volume. Defining TerrorismTo begin, a valid occupation can be made once morest so-called good terrorists by establishing a baseline definition of terrorism. In some of his other writi ngs, Kegley has maintained that one of the problems in condemning terrorists is that the act of terrorism itself is so challenging to de delicately in other words, as was mentioned precedently, a terrorist may not be considered a terrorist by everyone, because ultimately, some group of people or nation is supposedly benefitting from the terror inflicted on some other group.However, by fine tuning the definition of a terrorist, it give be affirmable to reinforce and build upon the argument of this paper- that there is no such thing as a good terrorist. In order to pose that affirmation solid and tenable, one must consider that the term terrorism should in fact touch to acts of violence, war or sabotage inflicted upon innocent civilian populations by a person or persons not affiliated with an organized army and outside of the reaching of decl bed warf ar.Within this context, we ar not lecture about the soldier who serves his country by defeating enemies in combat, but we a re talking about extremists who go ballistic car bombs near schools and hospitals. In using this definition, it is affirmable to further bolster the argument. Terrorism is about Targets as Well as Intentions A second assertion that can be made in reassessment of Kegleys presentation comes from a discussion of the make out 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 difficult to free other people from the oppression of another group, change a bad situation, avenge previous wrongs and the like, is violating international constabulary 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 scour private residential areas, there is a tremendous wrong being done, no egress what noble cause the terrorist claims to support or advance. only when put, the means d o not justify the end. A Fine Line between Patriotism and Vigilantism A key point continues to echo throughout this research- the fine line between defeating enemies and violating the written and unwritten laws of humanity. Indeed, one could make the argument, for example, that the founders of the United States in some slipway inflicted terrorism according to our previously stated definition, for some of them were un-uniformed, taking up arms against an organized, sovereign government, no matter how noble the cause was for which they were fighting.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 domain of a function, even among those who adamantly oppose one another, for if opposing groups are allowed to continually launch terror attacks upon each other, all of humanity will soon degrade to nut house and anar chy, serving no ones interests.Indeed, it is morally, ethically and legally wrong for people to take the law into their own hands therefore, all authorisation or actual terrorist acts must be dealt with in the harshest possible terms. Conclusion In this paper, the argument has been made and support that there is no such thing as a good terrorist, no matter what the intentions, motivations or goals of the terrorist, keeping in mind 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 destroy 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 pause for it. Conversely, if we allow these grey areas to exist where a potential terrorist thinks they will receive rewards, either in this world 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 onwards it is too late.