Many people who commit acts of terrorism consider themselves fundamentally altruistic, believing that the acts of violence they commit are truly for the greater good. This distorted view of blind “selfless devotion” arises from many factors; thus, raising the question: How are ordinary people indoctrinated to believe that the atrocities of terrorism are their moral obligation? Scholars have cited a multitude of possible explanations for this. The most widespread is the role of the Internet. Thousands of ordinary people are guided by 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 evaluate 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Terrorism researchers Michael Taarnby[1]and John Berry[2]theorized that alienation and discrimination could be possible precursors to radicalization. An example of this can be seen through a study conducted in 2013, in the Netherlands, focusing on young Muslims; found that when these young people felt disconnected from Dutch society, they were at greater risk of developing a radical belief and being indoctrinated into the system. This highlights how the feeling of 'non-fit' 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 become vulnerable and embrace a sense of belonging. Eventually, they may become susceptible to the influences of people who seem to respect and care about them: they seek to please and be accepted. Once they feel valued within a group, it is extremely natural for these people to succumb to the organization's expectations. An individual's alienation can attract him to different types of terrorist groups – one of which is ISIS, which has recently been responsible for countless acts of terrorism especially 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 holds a far-reaching appeal to Muslims around the world, including those who have enjoyed the benefits of Western education and freedom, and yet, somehow, their call to join them proves tempting and they leave all that that is familiar to them to face a possible death. in the name of the cause. They are so committed that they are sometimes ready to sacrifice themselves to literally become a human bomb, based on the absolute belief that they will be rewarded for their dedication in "heaven". Failure to do so will result in punishment, according to ISIS. This is evident in an official statement released by al-Adnani, 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 young Muslim, join the caravan of the mujahidin, if you do so you will be the honored and dignified king of the land he will rule.” the Dunja. And if you refuse, you will be a humiliated, miserable, despicable loser.”[3] Terrorism can also arise from deeply rooted feelings of resentment and hatred, created bysense of displacement. An example of this is the paramilitary organization of the Irish Republican Army, also known as the IRA, a movement devoted to the belief that all of Ireland should be an independent republic and that political violence has the means necessary to achieve this goal. The IRA Green Book, a training and induction manual, states that “The IRA, as the legal representative of the Irish people, is morally justified in carrying out a campaign of resistance against foreign occupying forces and domestic collaborators”. [4] Many Irish felt subjugated by the English occupation which led to their involvement in political terrorism, using force, fear and intimidation. They have used methods such as bombings, shootings, torture and threatening behavior in both Ireland and the UK to attempt to achieve their goal of freedom. This can be seen in the 1996 Manchester bombing, where the IRA's main objective was to target the city's infrastructure and economy and cause devastating damage. They subsequently hoped that the British government would withdraw from Northern Ireland. Even today, despite the Good Friday Agreement – ​​in which it was agreed to lay down arms – there is evidence that the IRA is still active. Other forms of terrorism include dissent terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, and criminal terrorism. It is clear that terrorists are motivated by the factors mentioned above, as well as fear, victimization and abuse, justice and revenge, and monetary and socioeconomic gain. Famous social psychologist Albert Bandura concludes that “Favourable social conditions rather than monstrous people are needed to produce atrocious acts. Given appropriate social conditions, decent, ordinary people can be induced to do extraordinarily cruel things”.[5] However, Raffaello Pantucci (director of international security studies) believes, based on his research, that numerous terrorist attacks are used as a method of eliminating personal demons, rather than engaging ideologically.[6] He argues that in many cases it seems clear that many of the “lone wolves” are not entirely convinced of the ideology they claim to be fighting for. It may, in reality, just be an outlet for potentially confusing sexuality, confused religious identity, anger management issues, and family disputes. For example, Man Haron Monis, a man who held ten customers and eight employees of a Lindt chocolate bar hostage? located in Martin Place in Sydney, had only recently converted to Sunni Islam and brought the wrong flag with him into his allegedly ISIS-inspired attack. Ultimately, Pantucci says that terrorism will provide a socially awkward individual with violent tendencies with a way to punish the world around you while also giving meaning to your act. Can terrorism ever be justified? The debate over whether terrorism can ever be justified can be extraordinarily subjective. For those living in oppressed societies where they may regularly suffer both physical and emotional abuse, fearing for the safety of not only their own lives but also their children, living in extreme poverty and facing hunger, with no foreseeable end, they may feel have no other choice. Often trying to mobilize for change through political and humanitarian processes, many are shut down with no hope for the future in sight, making it very easy to succumb to the ideological extremes of reaction and justice recovery. It can be argued that in extreme cases, when democracy is exhausted, resorting to violence to pursue one's cause and defend one's people is the only option. ToFor 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 an end to apartheid. The reason for this was: “There comes a time in the life of every nation when only two choices remain: submit or fight. That time has now come in South Africa. (...) The refusal to resort to force was interpreted by the government as an invitation to use armed force against the population without any fear of retaliation. The methods of Umkhonto we Sizwe mark a break with that past.” [7]However, others argue that peaceful and democratic means should always be used and, even when democratic rights are denied, nonviolent protest is the only moral action. Even when subjugated populations are weak and vulnerable to reprisals by the attacked state, it is particularly important for groups to unite and not resort to terror. Terrorism only exacerbates a situation and creates a cycle of violence and suffering and this is a conclusion that Nelson Mandela himself reached. Evidence of this can be seen in his statement “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you must work with your enemy. Then become your partner.”[8] In the reigns of terror, possible targets include civilians, politicians, the military, or other powerful authorities. First of all, it is immoral and illegitimate to kill innocent people since they did not contribute to the marginalization of the terrorist, and therefore hurting them will not undo the cause of the harm. Second, attacks on authorities who may be responsible for the marginalization often provoke a backlash in which supporters of these authorities act against the insurgents, only causing further harm. This can be seen in the Kurdish uprising against the Turkish authorities, which led to a guerrilla war with over 30,000 victims.[9] Despite the aforementioned argument, it could be argued that a nation's population is complicit in crimes committed by governments that support regimes through the payment of taxes. Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, justifies the attack on civilians in his "Letter to America", stating that they are complicit in American military actions abroad because they are part of a democracy that has elected its own government and pays taxes to finance their actions.[10] In many cases, terrorism can lead to the recognition of particular groups that would otherwise 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 managed to get governments to negotiate with them in many countries. Terrorism can force recognition of a cause where previous governments have been unwilling to yield to rational argument and peaceful protest. Nelson Mandela went from terrorist to democratically elected president. This is a trend that we can also observe 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] While terrorism can lead to arguments, it may have a lower chance of success than other, more peaceful means. Not only can it antagonize and anger the community it targets, but it also polarizes opinion, making victory and compromise more difficult. A long-term peace solution can only be achieved with the freely expressed consent of both parties to the conflict. Furthermore, the Oslo peace process is an example of diplomatic engagement on an international scale and terrorism does not appear to have directly contributed to this process. On the other hand, overlooked cause profiles canperhaps be relieved of terrorism. The Palestinian cause received publicity through the hijackings of the 1970s and 1980s, thus involving the world. [12]States can use their wealth and their media to make their side of the story known; their opponents do not have these resources and perhaps need 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 attention that comes from terrorism is not entirely positive. Following the September 11 attacks, workers and laborers in Afghanistan were forced to cut food supplies, even though some 8 million civilians depended on them. [13]The terrorist attacks that attract the most attention are the violent ones that are most likely to elicit reactions of pain and disgust, meaning that the international community is much less likely to sympathize with their cause. People see acts of violence as a threat and therefore fear of escalation prevails. Even more, acts of violence are open to multiple interpretations, which can be used in favor of the oppressor state, which has many more resources to spread its message. Not only can it claim to use violence against these terrorist groups to defend itself, but it can also paint a picture of terrorists as irrational and violent creatures. This easily plays into existing stereotypes that non-Westerners are violent. To counter this scenario it is wiser to resort to violent actions. This has the advantage of transmitting a very clear message to the outside world: the people protesting 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 was able to attract a lot of positive attention and followers.[14] One point in favor of 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 constantly suffer from poverty and injustice. Overall, these people didn't choose to suffer this way and it wasn't even a result of their actions; therefore it can be considered logical to believe that it is a good thing to reduce this suffering. If acts of terrorism are used to achieve equality, terrorism can perhaps be seen as an effective weapon in a revolutionary struggle, resulting in progress. An example 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]Remember: this is just an example. Get a custom 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 interest by moral and legal means, even in cases of oppression. While there may be cases where terrorist acts alone will lead to direct improvements in quality of life, these are few and far between. In most cases, terrorist attacks are carried out by extremist groups with ideologies very different from the majority they claim to represent. Many people favor nonviolent means, and the repercussions of violent terrorism will greatly worsen the position of those who are marginalized in society. Chapter Three – Is the death penalty an effective solution to combat terrorism? In this chapter I aim to investigate whether the use of the death penalty is an effective method in the fight against terrorism...