What is Wrong with Terrorism?

Terrorism can undermine the effectiveness of national governments by destroying military, social, and economic infrastructure leading to a lose of confidence amongst the populations of the afflicted countries that their governments are still able to protect them and promote stability alongside prosperity. All the national governments that are unable to protect or to provide for their own populations could have to give into the demands of terrorists groups or defeat them outright to stand any realistic chance of restoring their power and position. By attacking or destroying military, social, and economic infrastructure is wrong because it is risking the lives and the well being of innocent civilian populations (Gray, 2005 p. 188).

National governments are recognised as having legitimate recourse to use their armed forces, police forces, and the judiciary to maintain stability as well as law and order at the domestic level. Nation states also have the right to use armed forces to ensure security from the threat of invasion or attack from other countries and also from terrorist groups whether based at home or abroad. National governments are therefore the only legitimate users of armed forces within their own borders (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 192).

Terrorism as a strategy and or as a tactic is wrong as it’s users, supporters, or advocates believe that they should use violence instead of using peaceful forms of demonstration or protests. Terrorism is adopted by such organisations either as the first resort or sometimes in desperation as a last resort due to believing they will fail to achieve their political, military, or nationalist objectives (Ferguson, 2006 p. 2).

Terrorism is wrong because it uses surprise attacks and ambushes in order to dislocate and also to disorient government armed and security forces, which they are fighting. Surprise attacks are usually carried out to maximise the impact of terrorist firepower and inflict as much damage and causalities as possible against national governments. Such tactics are wrong as people that are just doing their jobs will get killed or maimed, with the high level of risk that innocent civilians will be hit in the crossfire (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p.192).

For the users and the advocates of terrorism their immoral actions up to and including mass murder are actually justified by the end results should they succeed in achieving their over all aims. In that sense terrorism is the most Machiavellian of notions as the ends do justify the means at least for the members as well as the supporters of terrorist groups and organisations. The most extreme terrorist groups and organisations would argue that not using the tactics and the strategies put forward by terrorism would be the most immoral act of all (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 5).

Groups and organisations whose motivation for using terrorism is religious or ideological in origin are the most likely to hold such an opinion to justify their behaviour. Evidence and experience points to groups and organisations such as Al-Qaeda believing that they do everything to make their distorted views of the world a reality. Al-Qaeda even brought a new terrifying quantity to the lives lost in their operations with the 9/11 attacks in the United States. Al-Qaeda would have absolutely no qualms about using any weapons at its disposal, in fact the more destructive the better as far as its leadership is concerned (Gray, 2005 p. 93).