A genuine look on a controversial topic. Because the majority voices often drown out the voice of apparently reasonable causation.
The debate on terrorism is essentially between state and non-state actors. “Terrorism” was introduced to describe the violent and extremist actions of the Jacobin government in France against ‘enemies’ of the revolution, termed the Reign of Terror of the 1790s[i]. The word was included in dictionaries in 1795 and defined as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion[ii]”, or “the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act”[iii]. Internationally, there is a lack of a universally acceptable definition, and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004), is the closest international definition, “the intimidation or coercion of populations or governments through the threat or perpetration of violence, including the taking of hostages. The charter also explicitly condemns […] all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation […] as one of the most serious threats to peace and security”.
Colloquially, “terrorism” has become synonymous with the actions of small number non-state actors undertaking violent acts against innocents for sensational or religious purposes to bring attention of government officials to their cause and demands. Hence, “terrorism” has been linked to religious motivations, disregarding the underlying political construction, and actions of “terrorists” are labelled immoral. However, perpetrators of terrorism claim their actions as morally just, claiming that because “they are attacked, then […] have the right to attack back”[iv], or that a lack of government regard and consequent cooperation force them to fight for their freedom. This instigates a moral debate – some philosophies appear to support, while others condemn “terrorist” acts.
Consequentialism ethics believes that the morality of an action is determined solely by its consequences, if the outcome is positive, the action is morally justified. However, Kantian moral absolutism states that “an act is evil if it violates the dignity of another, regardless of motive”, i.e. morality is rooted in duty, not emotions or consequences, thus actions guided by a sense of duty and reason are morally right. Both ethical definitions have a wide scope of interpretation. Osama Bin Laden justified the 9/11 attacks by claiming that American civilians were not innocent as they had voted in a government which was supporting Israel’s oppression of Palestinians[v]. America carried out Operation Desert Storm and killed Osama Bin Laden with his entire family, as they were “terrorists”. This debate then pivots in deciding what is “innocence” and who is a “civilian” and “innocent”. Civilian is “a person not on active duty in the armed services […], police or firefighting force”[vi], hence killing them becomes a larger burden of proof to justify than military personnel as civilians do not sign up for inter-country altercations and are “innocent” of warfare.
The word “innocent”, though, derives from the 14th century – “free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil”[vii] – but evil and sin themselves have varied interpretations from different perspectives. This is clearly highlighted when terrorists claim that the civilians they targeted are not “innocent” as seen in 9/11, while the country’s citizens and government categorize the sample group of people as “innocent”. For further discussion, this essay shall assume that no one is “innocent” as the butterfly effect often results in far-reaching consequences of every-day decisions. Therefore, “terrorism” can no longer be defined as the “killing of innocents”, one of the major reasons for their condemnation. The focus then shifts onto the act of “killing” rather than the “victim” or “intended consequence”.
Kantian absolutism considers killing wrong because it violates the dignity, worth and autonomy of others. In contrast, justifying killing as wrong is more complicated with consequentialism ethics, because an outcome can be both, favourable and unfavourable, depending on the short- and long-term outcomes. “Killing”, though, should be a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted, because it is not only irreversible, but becomes a worse consequence if the intended outcome is unachieved. Ethically, killing becomes immoral in almost all situations; but when carried out by state actors, it is often justified by rebranding it as “necessary” and “justified to prevent a worse outcome”, as seen historically during the bombing of Hiroshima-Nagasaki by the USA and of Gaza by Israel.
In 1945, the USA used nuclear weapons to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two Japanese towns. Hundred-thousand died, and the same number suffered from radiation sickness, burns, and disabilities. Till today, future generations are impacted by the radiation of the bombing. This was the first time in history that nuclear bombs were used; the USA justified this heinous act by claiming that 1. Japan was the enemy, being a fascist country and was looking to take over the world, and 2. The move crippled Japan and ended the war, thus no more Allied lives were lost as would inevitably have been. In essence, the USA justified killing, mutilating and permanently ruining civilians of two Japanese cities in exchange of saving military lives, conveniently ignoring that less destructive methods could have been used to achieve the same end, and that the military had signed up for war while the civilians had not. Yet, this action was not labelled “terrorism”, but was glorified globally.
Similarly, in 2023-24, Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza, with the diplomatic and military support of the USA. This was in “retaliation” to the “terrorist” attacks carried out by Hamas which had killed 1000 Israelis and was termed “war”. Yet, when other “terrorist” organisations, Hezbollah and Houthis joined the conflict, it was “terrorist attacks” from their side and “war” from Israel-USA. Using two different terms for similar tactics – bombing leading to civilian casualties – cannot be justified.
Historically, state actors in power prefer labelling protestors as “terrorists” for rebelling against the regime. This was the case when the Britishers labelled Bhagat Singh a “terrorist” after he ‘protested’ against their oppressive rule by bombing the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi in 1929; the Indian public viewed him as a freedom fighter, proving true the phrase “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.
Likewise, Hamas labels themselves as protestors whose aim is to reclaim their ancient Palestinian land from Israel. They claim that Israel, the West Bank and Gaza were a part of historic Palestine and are rightfully Palestinian land. As no diplomatic talks were accepted by Israel, Hamas decided that violence is the only means available to either bring the attention of the Israeli government to their cause, or takeover the land. This ideology can be taken to subscribe to Fanon’s thinking – violence as the only solution to dismantle the psychological damage caused by colonisers and restore the self-government of a colonist, as the coloniser does not recognise the colonised as human, making violent protest the only feasible option towards a liberated and self-determined society. In today’s time, the same principle can be applied to justify the violent acts of “terrorists”.
Meanwhile, Hannah Arendt recognises terror as a major tool of totalitarian regimes as well, used to destroy people and maintain hold on power, with no dissent or opposition. She defines the reason behind the success of terror as ideology: political, religious or a mix – many people must have subscribed to this ideology before terror can stabilise it.
Stalin’s show trials[viii] are an apt example, where “capitalist” supporters or “dissenters” were publicly tried and sentenced to death; possible only because the Russian people supported communism and its preservation through all means, often leading to denouements by neighbours, friends or even family members[ix]. Contrastingly, when the Taliban took over state power in Afghanistan in 2021, they were, internationally, labelled “terrorists”, and the UN has not recognised them as an official government even 4 years later; the General Assembly refuses to give the seat to the Taliban and maintains that it belongs to the previous Afghan government. Due to their label of “terrorists”, their retaliation against attacks by the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) insurgents are labelled “terrorism”, even though they justify their action as “retaliation”, similar to Israel against Hamas.
Clearly, the same action is justified by state actors through rebranding, and vilified when undertaken by non-state actors, making “terrorism” a term of political convenience; it is a label given by state actors to differentiate their actions from non-state actors, even though the action is ethically and morally unacceptable regardless of the perpetrator. And because the act of “killing” is wrong, when we view actions exclusive from the cause, as we are wont to do with “terrorists”, state actions such as capital punishment also become immoral.
Most capital punishments are given to perpetrators of serious crimes, such as the Criminal Law Act (2013)[x], the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)[xi] or the POCSO Act[xii] in India; these acts permit the death penalty as perpetrators are repeat rape or sexual offenders, or threaten the sovereignty, integrity and security of India. Public opinion often views capital punishment as closure for the victim’s families; sidelining that the perpetrator is also a civilian, and that killing is immoral. This is one of the major reasons for the abolishment of capital punishment. International organisations condemn “killing” majorly on moral grounds. The United Nations grants rights to individuals suspected of terrorism, including fair trials and legal representation[xiii], and prohibits countries from using torture or inhumane treatment against suspects or captured terrorists[xiv], in the spirit of morality and upholding human rights.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 6)[xv] outlines every person’s lawfully protected right to life and decrees that no juvenile or pregnant woman shall be sentenced to death, and optionally (2nd Protocol) abolishes the death penalty regardless of crime(s) committed. Canada is one of the member states having signed the optional protocol, and subsequently no death penalty was passed in the country post 2005. Member countries of the European Union (EU) also hold up the right to life (Article 2) and “abolish the death penalty in all circumstances including war” (Protocol 13)[xvi] as per the EU charter, believing that taking a life is immoral, and that breaking the cycle of retribution and revenge is essential. Therefore, nothing can justify taking another’s life.
If we define “terrorism” as “evil” because civilians lose their lives in “terrorist” activities, we hide behind double-meaning labels. The ultimate consequence is a loss of life, which is unjustifiable. So, the focus should not be on what “terrorism” means, but what all is and should be classified as “terrorism”. Killing civilians cannot be justified bynon-state, totalitarian or state actors, regardless of the provocation – if ISIS is immoral in killing civilians, so is the USA.
“Terrorism” is often viewed as a singular act, but within the circle of action and reaction, philosophy and morality change meanings. The reasoning of “terrorism” lies deeper than morality. It is in the necessity rooted in the minds of people who feel that “terrorist acts” are their only option, the only way to make themselves heard and gain their rights. The government is unwilling to engage diplomatically, and a faux pas is reached, until an extremity causes alarm, loss, and retaliation for retribution. And when someone is branded a “terrorist”, all humane thoughts flee, replaced with an “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” mentality, instigating a cycle of revenge; but international organisations still work towards upholding basic human rights.
Today, the definitions have changed, and only the power to criticise non-state actors remains; but the targeting and killing of “civilians” cannot be solely linked to “terrorists”. Taking a life is immoral regardless of the perpetrator, consequence or circumstance, and should always be condemned, but unearthing of deeper psychological layers of “terrorists” is required to reach successful solutions diplomatically, through dialogue, rather than militarily, where both sides ambush each other.
Endnotes
[i] https://www.unodc.org/documents/e4j/18-04932_CT_Mod_01_ebook_FINALpdf.pdf
[ii] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism
[iii] https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/2004/en/35952
[iv] Cassam Quassim, Can Terrorism Ever be Morally Justified, Springer, 2024, p176-188
[v] Cassam Quassim, Can Terrorism Ever be Morally Justified, Springer, 2024, p176-188
[vi]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian#:~:text=%3A%20a%20person%20not%20on%20active,civilian%20adjective
[vii] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent#h1
[viii] Philip Short, Putin: His Life and Times
[ix] Walsh Ben, IGCSE History Option B: The twentieth century, Third Edition, 2022
[x] https://www.iitk.ac.in/wc/data/TheCriminalLaw.pdf
[xi] https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1967-37.pdf
[xii]https://nhrc.nic.in/sites/default/files/10_PROTECTION%20OF%20CHILDREN%20-%20SEXUAL%20OFFENCES.pdf
[xiii] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights – Article 5, 10, 11
[xiv]https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading – Article 1, 2
[xv]https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
[xvi] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
REFERENCES
Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, 1951.
Arendt, Hannah. On Violence. Harcourt, 1970.
Bauman, Zygmunt. Modernity and the Holocaust. Cornell University Press, 1989.
Bhattacharyya, Hariharan. Radical Politics and Governance in India. Routledge, 2018.
Chomsky, Noam. 9-11. Seven Stories Press, 2001.
Crenshaw, Martha. “The Causes of Terrorism.” Comparative Politics, vol. 13, no. 4, 1981, pp. 379–399.
Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, 1961.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage, 1995.
Ganor, Boaz. “Defining Terrorism: Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?” Police Practice and Research, vol. 3, no. 4, 2002, pp. 287–304.
Gray, John. Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.
Hobsbawm, Eric. Revolutionaries. Abacus, 1999.
Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. 3rd ed., Columbia University Press, 2017.
Ignatieff, Michael. The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. Princeton University Press, 2004.
“International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights. Accessed 15 June 2025.
Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. University of California Press, 2003.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by H. J. Paton, Harper & Row, 1964.
Laqueur, Walter. A History of Terrorism. Transaction Publishers, 2001.
“Oxford Learners’ Dictionaries: Terrorism.” https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/terrorism. Accessed 15 June 2025.
“POSCO Act.” National Human Rights Commission, India, https://nhrc.nic.in/sites/default/files/10_PROTECTION%20OF%20CHILDREN%20-%20SEXUAL%20OFFENCES.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2025.
Quassim, Cassam. Can Terrorism Ever Be Morally Justified? Springer, 2024.
Resolution 1566. “Resolution 1566 (2004).” UNHCR Refworld, https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unsc/2004/en/35952. Accessed 15 June 2025.
Sandler, Todd. “The Analytical Study of Terrorism: Taking Stock.” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 51, no. 2, 2014, pp. 257–271.
Short, Philip. Putin: His Life and Times. Henry Holt and Company, 2022.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights. Accessed 15 June 2025.
Walsh, Ben. IGCSE History Option B: The Twentieth Century. 3rd ed., Hodder Education, 2022.
Wilkinson, Paul. Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. Routledge, 2011.
