Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Ubdasja Calixte

Professor Debra Dagher


18 March 2015
Double entry

Double Entry Journal


Citation:
Held, Virginia. "Terrorism and War." The Journal of Ethics 8.1 (2004): 59-75.JSTOR. Web. 1 Jan.
2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115781>.

Source: Quote (Page# or Paragraph #)

Responses

Terrorism most resembles small war p. 59


How so? Some terrorism can cause major
damage
to large
groups of
can
Lack of power is often the reason why
Terrorists
use terrorism
forpeople
sensewhich
of power,
lead
to
something
bigger..
terrorism is their weapon in the first place. 61 and in hopes to cause change to an
uncomfortable
situation. Whats the criteria
There are different kinds of terrorism as
What
are the differences?
Held
will
not
argue
that
terrorism
is
justified
She
thinks
terrorism
is bad but not as bad as
there are of war p. 59
that distinguishes them?
but that terrorism is not necessarily worse
war. Not bad enough to evade looking into
A
serious
mistake
to discussion
be avoidedof
is terrorism
assumingis I used
to think of
that..
are they different?
than
war.The
recent
the rationale
the how
terrorist.
all
terrorism
is
alike
p.
59
that terrorism is so morally unacceptable as a
mean that we do not need even to consider
Dick Cheney no policy of containment or
Fighting violence with violence isnt good. US
the politicalwill
objectives
of those p.
who
deterrence
prove effective
60engage isnt willing to negotiate.
in terrorism. 62
Governments
characteristically
So definition
governments
Defining
terrorism
is notoriouslydefine
difficult p 62 The
may see
varyterrorism
I assumeas an attack
terrorism as something only opponents can
on their establishments.
Terrorism
a weapon only
of the
weak
commit asissomething
those
who seek to So usually its a smaller group that attempts
to send a message to a larger group
change policies. 62
Whenonmilitary
of Argentina
So way
when
states
cause terrorism
its not
war
terror ruler
in central
Americacaused
in the
The
the
US combated
terrorism
was
thousands
ofapproximately
their suspected
opponents to
terrorism but
when aviolence
group attacks
the state
1980s
killed
200,000people
hypocritical.
Fighting
with violence
and
disappear
produced
in order
over to
a million
spreadrefugees
fear among
p 61
doesnt
its terrorism.
work. Isnt that a double standard?
other potential dissidents this was state
Governments dont have definition including a
Domination
of
the
state
is
what
a
group
So
that isgroup
a reason
whyharm
sometoresort
to
terrorism 62
higher
causing
a smaller
engaging in terrorism is resisting p 61
terrorism
group.
There canoften
be state
sponsored
terrorism
as
Perhaps
states
are that?
doingWhere
so to protect
their
Terrorists
believe,
whether
mistakenly
Why
do they
believe
did they
get
when
the
government
of
one
state
funds
and
economic
investments
in
another
state.
or not that violence is the only course of
this idea? Why do they think its successful?
action
to them
that carred
can advance
supports
terrorism
out by their
members of What instances in history has shown that
political
objective
p69under its control.63
terrorism works?
groups or
states not
Terrorism seeks to terrorize, to spread fear
There must be a deeper message that
States as well as nonstate groups can
More nonstate groups are portrayed on
among wider group than those directly
terrorists want to convey by getting ppls
engage in terrorism pg 59
medias in engaging in terrorism. I think states
affected 63
evencitizens
thoughand
it means
killing.
doattention
it to control
no one
can
Terrorism is political violence 63
If
its
political
than
certainly
somethings
can
combat them.
be compromised between the groups that
Those who share views that all terrorism is
So
there
is justification
for violence
against
want
change
and the opposing
group.
the
same
and
there
should
be
no
terrorism
and
none
for
the
terrorist
act.
Held sites Walzer who says there is a serious Its too broad of a definition.things thatOn
dont
negotiation
with
a terrorists
are intent
onsees either
both are would
killing lots
of be
people.
problem with
definition
of terrorism
that
seemend
terroristlike
in fact
terrorism
rejecting
any comparison
between
dealths
the deliberate
killing of innocent
people
as
caused by terrorist and death caused by
the definingPcharacteristic
or what
opponents.
60
distinguighes it from other political violence
It64is unclear why those who bring about
Civilians are deemed innocent in the publics
states
policies
and
give
it
armed
services
If it were true bombing of Hiroshima would be eyes but to terrorists they are followers of the
their
orders should be exempt. P 60
government terrorists despise.
terrorism
Actions of the states opposing terrorists
Actualhave
loss of
life caused
by far
terrorism
group
frequently
killed
more in
comparison
conventional
civilians
thanwith
have
terrorists. Pwarfare
61
remains relatively modest.
Held rejects the view that terrorism is
States possess weapons of precision
capable of attacking when they choose to,
targeted persons intentionally and civilians
only unintentionally is just another way in
which their superior power allows them to be
dominant. P 61

Its a cycle. Terrorists kill. Government kills


Thispeople.
is a strong
point
thatcould
supports
Helds
more
More
anger
encourage
idea thatgroups
war is to
farwant
moretodangerous
than
terrorists
attack again
into a
terrorism.
vicious
killing spree on both ends.
She explains the fuzziness of identifying who
Since states kill much more than the terrorists
kill, and they have more powerful weapons
the claim that some were killed accidentally
isnt true. How can u differentiate between
civilians and terrorists? It could be they target
anyone who they think could be a target.

inevitably and necessarily morally worse than


war, which many assert because they declare
that, by definition, terrorism targets civilians.
Idecline to make targeting civilians a defining
feature of terrorism.Terrorismis a political
violence that usually spreads fear beyond
those attacked, as others recognize
themselves as potential targets. 68
There are many kinds of terrorism as there
are many kinds of war. 68
Violence used to suppress terrorism is the
price paid to maintain the status quo, as the
violence used by dissatisfied group is the
price paid to pursue its goal.

The burden of making terrorism more


successful is on the government 68
Terrorists often believe, whether mistakenly
or not, that violence is the only course of
action open to them that can advance their
political objectives. 69
Lloyd Dumas examins the ineffectiveness of
violent couter terrorism noting that for
decades, isreal had doggedly followed a polic
of responding to any act of terrorism with
violent military retaliation. The result, there
exists more terrorism directed against Isreal
than ever beforeIsraelis live in fear.69
No form of violence can be justified unless
other means of achieving a legitimate political
objective have failed 71
Those who study terrorists are amazed at
how normal they seem and how articulate
and rational they are. 71
Poverty is not the cause of terrorism 72
Religious zealotry is a cause

are the citizens, and the definition of terrorism


includes killing citizens which is too broad
because it includes incidents of history that
arent considered terrorist acts.
Killing civilians arent deliberate, the main
thing terrorists thrive on is the fear. They want
to address something.

You cant treat all terrorism the same.


Different terrorists have different motives, and
ways of carrying out terrorism.
This reminds me of Nat Turner Rebellion.
Group of slaves planned to kill their slave
owners because of maltreatment, but the
owners found out and killed all the slaves.
Fighting for change seems morally justifiable
than fighting against it to maintain oppressive
dissatisfying behavior.
The government can decide to bring about
the change terrorists want or refuse
Perhaps other methods have been
ineffective. Violence does get peoples
attention, which is what the terrorists want.
They want attention.
With retaliation of the gov. with violence it
seems to add more fumes to the fire. It
makes things worse.

Governments havent even tried other forms


of responding to terrorists so violence isnt
justified.
Terrorists arent crazies.they come in different
forms.
So terrorists are motivated by something
else. There problem isnt poverty.
Maybe they are passionate about a religion
and feel offended or want to impose their
religion in a society.