Many people who commit acts of terrorism consider themselves fundamentally altruists, believing that the acts of violence they commit are truly aimed at the greater good. This distorted view of blind “selfless dedication” arises from many factors; therefore, one may ask how are ordinary people indoctrinated to believe that the atrocities of terrorism constitute their moral obligation? Researchers have cited a multitude of possible explanations for this phenomenon. The most widespread role is that of the Internet. Thousands of ordinary people are motivated to terrorism through extremist websites and social media, consisting of constant propaganda and justification. Violent extremists often target people who are frustrated with society, this may be due to painful experiences, feelings of anxiety and displacement or a personal need for power, importance and purpose. In this chapter, I will assess the reasons that motivate terrorism, as well as the different ways in which violent attacks are carried out. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get the original essay Terrorism researchers Michael Taarnby[1] and John Berry[2] have hypothesized that alienation and discrimination could be possible precursors to radicalization. An example of this can be seen in a 2013 study in the Netherlands focused on Muslim youth; it found that when these young people felt disconnected from Dutch society, they were at higher risk of developing a radical belief and being indoctrinated into the system. This shows how the feeling of “not fitting in”, due to being marginalized by society, is an important factor in the descent into a world of terrorism. Those who face prejudice and feel marginalized by their environment are then vulnerable and welcome a sense of belonging. Ultimately, they may become susceptible to the influences of people who appear to respect and care for them – they seek to please and be accepted. Once valued within a group, it is completely natural for these people to succumb to the expectations of the organization. An individual's alienation can attract them to many types of terrorist groups, including ISIS, which has recently been responsible for countless acts of terrorism, primarily in the Middle East but also in Western society. The form of terrorism in which the Islamic State participates is religious terrorism. They claim to act in the name of the true "Islamic faith" and anyone who opposes them is an enemy and an infidel/non-believer and deserves the ultimate punishment of death. This group has considerable appeal to Muslims around the world, including those who have enjoyed the benefits of Western education and freedom. Yet their call to join them proves seductive and they abandon everything familiar to them to face possible death. in the name of the cause. They are so committed that they are sometimes willing to offer themselves as sacrifices when they become the real human bomb, based on the absolute belief that they will be rewarded for their dedication to "heaven". Failure to do so will result in sanctions, according to ISIS. This is clear from an official statement made by al-Adnani, the designated spokesperson for ISIS. This is a man who represents the group and threatens those who refuse to conform to the ideals by saying: “Therefore, O Muslim youth, join the caravan of the mujahideen. If you do, you will be honored and worthy kings of the earthwho will govern. Dounia. And if you refuse, you will be humiliated, miserable and despicable losers. »[3] Terrorism can also stem from deep-rooted feelings of resentment and hatred created by the feeling of displacement. An example of this is the paramilitary organization of the Irish Republican Army, also known as the IRA, a dedicated movement believing that the whole of Ireland should be an independent republic and that political violence has the means to achieve it. The IRA Green Paper, a training and integration manual, states that "the IRA, as the legal representatives of the Irish people, are morally justified in waging a campaign of resistance against foreign occupying forces and its national collaborators. »[4] Many Irish people felt subjected to English occupation, which led them to become involved in political terrorism, using force, fear and intimidation. They have used methods such as bombings, shootings, torture and threatening behavior in Ireland and the United Kingdom to try to achieve their goal of freedom. This was demonstrated during the 1996 Manchester bombing, in which the IRA's primary objective was to target the city's infrastructure and economy and cause devastating damage. Subsequently, they hoped that the British government would withdraw from Northern Ireland. Even today, despite the Good Friday Agreement – ​​in which they agreed to lay down their arms – there is evidence that the IRA is still active. Other forms of terrorism include dissident terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism and criminal terrorism. It is clear that terrorists are motivated by the aforementioned factors, as well as fear, victimization and abuse, justice and revenge, and monetary and socio-economic gain. The famous social psychologist Albert Bandura concludes: “It takes conductive social conditions rather than monstrous people to produce atrocious acts. Under appropriate social conditions, honest and ordinary people can be driven to commit extremely cruel acts. eliminating personal demons, rather than being ideologically engaged.[6] He argues that in many cases it seems clear that many of the "lone wolves" are not entirely convinced by the ideology they claim to be fighting for. In fact, it might just be an outlet for potentially confused sexuality, confused religious identity, anger management issues, and family conflict. For example, Man Haron Monis, a man who held ten customers and eight employees of a Lindt chocolatier hostage? located in Martin Place in Sydney, was a recent convert to Sunni Islam and had brought the wrong flag with him during his allegedly ISIS-inspired attack. Ultimately, Pantucci says terrorism will provide a socially awkward individual with violent tendencies a way to punish the world around them while still giving their act meaning. Can terrorism ever be justified? The debate over whether terrorism can ever be justified can be extremely subjective. For those living in oppressed societies in which they may regularly face physical and emotional abuse, fearing for the safety of not only their own lives but also those of their children, living in extreme poverty and facing starvation , with no predictable end, they may feel like they have no other choice. Often trying to advocate for change through political and humanitarian processes, many are closed without any hope forthe future, making it very easy to succumb to the ideological extremes of fighting back and demanding justice. It can be argued that in extreme cases, when democracy is exhausted, resorting to violence to assert one's cause and defend one's people is the only option. For example, Umkhonto we Six, a liberation organization led by Nelson Mandela and associated with the African National Congress in South Africa, turned to violence in 1961 to achieve freedom and end apartheid. The reason was this: “There comes a time in the life of every nation when it has only two choices: submit or fight. That time has now come for South Africa. (...) The refusal to use force was interpreted by the government as an invitation to use armed force against the population without any fear of reprisals. Umkhonto we Sizwe's methods mark a break with this past. [7]However, others argue that peaceful and democratic means must always be used and that even when democratic rights are violated, nonviolent protest is the only moral action. Even when subjugated populations are weak and vulnerable to retaliation by the attacked state, it is particularly important that groups unite and not resort to terror. Terrorism only exacerbates a situation and creates a cycle of violence and suffering. This is a conclusion Nelson Mandela himself reached. The proof is in his statement: “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you must work with your enemy. He then becomes your partner. »[8] In the area of ​​terrorism, possible targets include civilians, political, military or other powerful authorities. First of all, it is immoral and illegitimate to murder innocent people to the extent that they have not contributed to the marginalization of terrorists, and therefore harming them will not undo the cause of harm. Second, attacks on authorities who may be responsible for this marginalization often result in backlash where supporters of those authorities act against insurgents, only causing more damage. This is seen in the Kurdish revolt against the Turkish authorities, which led to a guerrilla war with over 30,000 causalities.[9] Despite the aforementioned argument, one could argue that the population of a nation is complicit in the crimes committed by governments by supporting regimes by paying taxes. Osama bin Laden, the founder of Al Qaeda, justifies attacks on civilians in his "Letter to America" ​​which states that they are complicit in US military actions abroad because they are part of a democracy who elected their own government and pays taxes. to finance their actions.[10] In many cases, terrorism can lead to the recognition of particular groups who otherwise would have been ignored, which raises the question: can terrorism ever be justified by its success in achieving results when peaceful means have failed ? Terrorists have succeeded in getting governments to negotiate with them in many countries. Terrorism can force recognition of a cause where previous governments were unwilling to yield to rational arguments and peaceful protests. Nelson Mandela went from terrorist to democratically elected president. This is a trend we can also see in other countries – in Israel, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, and in the Oslo peace process that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority.[11 ] Although terrorism can be discussed, it may have less chance of success than othersmore peaceful means. Not only can it upset and irritate the community it targets, but it also polarizes opinion, making it more difficult to win and compromise. A long-term peace settlement can only be achieved with the free consent of both parties to the conflict. Furthermore, the Oslo peace process is an example of diplomatic efforts on an international scale and terrorism does not seem to have contributed directly to this process. On the other hand, terrorism can perhaps raise the profile of neglected causes. The Palestinian cause was publicized thanks to the hijackings of the 1970s and 1980s, thus engaging the entire world. [12]States can use their wealth and their media to convey their version of the facts; their adversaries do not have these resources and may have to resort to terrorism to publicize their cause. In this way, limited and targeted use of violence can have a dramatic international impact, but the focus on terrorism is not entirely positive. After the September 11 attacks in Afghanistan, workers were forced to cut off food supplies, even though an estimated 8 million civilians depended on them. [13]The terrorist attacks that attract the most attention are the most violent, those most likely to elicit reactions of grief and disgust, meaning the international community is far less likely to respond. their cause. People perceive acts of violence as a threat and therefore the fear of escalation prevails. Even more, acts of violence are subject to multiple interpretations, which can be used in favor of the oppressive state, which has far more resources to get its message across. Not only can he claim to use violence against these terrorist groups to defend himself, but he can also portray the terrorists as irrational and violent creatures. This easily fits into existing stereotypes of non-Westerners being violent. To counter this scenario, it is wiser to resort to violent actions. This has the advantage of sending a very clear message to the outside world that the protesters are the victims and not the perpetrators. For example, Mahatma Gandhi's actions were known for their civil disobedience and counter-normative political messages, but due to the peaceful nature of his protest, he managed to attract a lot of positive attention and supporters.[14 ] One argument for justifying terrorism is that if the outcome of a terrorist act results in an overall increase in freedom and justice, then the action must be legitimate. Millions of people around the world suffer constantly because of poverty and injustice. Typically, these people did not choose to suffer in this way, nor is it the result of their action; it therefore seems logical to believe that it is a good thing to reduce this suffering. If acts of terrorism are used to achieve equality, perhaps terrorism can be seen as an effective weapon in revolutionary struggle, leading to progression. Examples of this are the terrorist attacks in several Middle Eastern countries that led to the Arab Spring, such as the attack on Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh. [15] Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Overall, we must ask ourselves: do the ends justify the means? It can be said that it is much better to pursue one's interests through moral and legal means, even in..