Moral Frameworks of Terrorists

Moral Frameworks of TerroristsThis paper discusses, with reference to two examples, whether terrorists puke orison to a unvarying moral simulation. Terrorism can be, and indeed, roughly usually is defined in the literature, as a strategy of violence that is designed to promote a desired out semen through and through instilling headache in the public at large. at that place argon, however, disagreements amongst mevery academics, from semipolitical science, law and pitying rights analysts, as to the definition of terrorism that should be put ond in practice, as some academics argue that the motives that fuel some terrorists ar politically valid. The definition of terrorism currently in use by the UN is, all act mean to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a organization or an international organisation to do, or abstain from doing, each act. (Annan, 2005).Regardless of the particular definition of terrorism that is employed, terrorist acts argon generally defined through their violence, the psychological impact of the act, the political goal of the act and the fact that they are usually perpetrated against civilians, or non-combatants. Obviously, as a result of these factors, terrorism is regarded, everywhere, as unlawful and an mother fucker means of achieving the ends that are sought, exactly as the famous saying goes, one mans terrorism is a nonher mans freedom hero sandwich. Recent events shake up brought this to the fore, with the warfare in sheepskin coatistan bringing back numerous memories for the United States government, who supported the Afghan Mujahideen as freedom fomenters during the United States war with the Soviet Union, but recently, the United States government branding breakaway Afghan groups as terrorists, and launching a war in Afghanistan to stop them in their terrorist acts. Nelson Mandela, ex-President of reciprocal ohm Africa, a nd Nobel Laureate, was once brand a terrorist and was imprisoned for decades for his terrorist acts a definition for terrorism, and the word terrorist thus looks to be flexible, depending on the political context and the aims that are trying to be achieved by the sight supporting the country in which the terrorist is present. What is certain, however, is that the people committing the stated acts of terrorism wholly believe in what they are fighting to achieve, and, as such, perform some sort of moral manakin to justify their actions and their beliefs. This paper is interested in how and why these frameworks are constructed and whether terrorists can ever appeal to a unchanging moral framework for their actions.As Bandura (1990) argues, terrorists are able to morally disengage through many psychological routes, and, as such, it is a societal responsibility to moderate civilised conduct through social systems which uphold compassionate behaviour and which denounce, and renounce , cruelty in any form. As Bandura (1990) argues, moral standards do not operate as fixed internal regulators of conduct, but rather, self-regulatory mechanisms do not engage until they are activated, and there are many ways in which these regulatory mechanisms can be disengaged, allowing the egression of different types of conduct with the same moral standards. Bandura (1990) further argues that political diversity and the toleration of public expressions of scepticism create the conditions that allow the emergence of challenges to suspect moral appeals, such that if societies are to safeguard against the occurrence of terrorism, they must establish social safeguards against the misuse of institutional justificatory powers for ends which are exploitative and destructive. As such, Bandura (1990) seems to be joust that it is the fault of the state, which has not ensured a proper, functioning, framework for the non- visual aspect of terrorism, which allows terrorism to grow, not tha t terrorists themselves are at fault. This type of argument does not require an appeal to moral consistency or moral frameworks on the part of the terrorist, but rather argues that terrorists are a product of a dysfunctional society, which is liable for the appearance of terrorists.Further to this, Atram (2006) concludes that suicide terrorism cannot be explained by a single political root cause, such as the presence of foreign military forces or the absence of democracy, as other factors such as psychological motivations, or religious inspirations can too contribute to the desire to undertake terrorist acts. As Atram (2006) argues, any simplistic accounts of terrorism, why it happens and what leads people to become terrorists, are bound to failure as terrorists dedicate underlying moral values and group dynamics which are complex themselves and also intertwined in a complex manner. Only when these root causes are fully understood by decision-makers will organisational and ideolo gical solutions that could defuse the curse of terrorism be found (Atram, 2006). As such, as Atram (2006) argues, terrorists make believe a consistent moral framework within which they work, allowing them to unilaterally act, in concert, to achieve their ends.There have been many terrorist acts in recent history, including the Munich massacre in 1972, during the Olympic Games, bombardment of flights including Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, gas attacks in Tokyo, bombing campaigns in Ireland by the IRA, the 9/11 attacks on the United States and, following this, the Bali bombings, the London and Madrid bombings. Terrorism is a tactic that has been used for a pertinacious time to achieve political ends, but it has recently come to the fore through the massive loss of life in the 9/11 bombings, and the sequent wars, as this was an attack against the currently most powerful nation on Earth, on home soil, killing thousands of innocents. Terrorism, as a political tool, has therefore come to be used almost as a daily term, in the media, by academics, in family homes, and, indeed, the populace is scared, perhaps by hyper coverage of terrorism in the media, perhaps by the attacks themselves, but, for whatever reason, the populace is scared, and so the terrorists are winning, under the definitions of terrorism which have been discussed herein.The current paper will discuss two examples of terrorist groups in order to assess the moral framework to which they adhere, to assess whether this framework is consistent, and, if, indeed, it can ever be argued that terrorists can appeal to a consistent moral framework.Colombia has been problematic in what is termed an armed struggle for the past four decades, since the death of Gaitan in the 1960s, when the FARC and the ELN were founded, ironically, as a call to stop La Violencia which had begun following Gaitans death. At this time, these two guerrilla groups campaigned for peace, for free elections and for the return of a leftist government. The FARC and the ELN have, however, in recent decades, become embroiled in the drugs trade, gaining money through the drugs trade in order to fund their war on the Colombian government, and their fight for peace in Colombia. In response to this, it is k instantaneouslyn that the current administration funded paramilitary groups to fight against the guerrillas1, although the paramilitary groups have themselves become embroiled in the drugs trade and are known to have committed acts of terrorism against civilians and non-combatants, such that there is now a war between the guerrillas and the paramilitaries.Thus, the land site in Colombia is extremely complex. FARC and ELN guerrillas began with the stated aim of returning Colombia to peace, through the instigation of free elections, seeking a solid political end to La Violencia. Their moral framework was just that a moral framework through which they were seeking to return Colombia to some semblance of popularit y. However, as we have seen, and because it is so easy, in a country where it is so difficult to earn a living any other way, the guerrilla groups became embroiled in the drugs trade, and, as such, their moral framework for committing terrorist acts has changed, and indeed, the way in which they commit their terrorist acts has changed, with IRA terrorists training the guerrillas in bombing tactics, and these being used on Colombian military targets, alas to great effect, with the concomitant loss of many lives. Thus, the Colombian case is extremely complex, with guerrilla groups starting out with mainly political aims, but with these same groups now largely fighting to retain control of their share of the drugs trade, cause armed combat between members of these guerrilla groups and government-backed paramilitaries whenever they come in to contact.Thus, the FARC and the ELN, although they started out as political terrorists are now seen as groups which use their skills to dominate the drugs trade, through the taking of national territory and the submission of hundreds of thousands of farmers in the regions in which they hold territory. The moral framework that these terrorist groups adhere to has, therefore, firstly, radically changed over the period of activity, and has taken a far less helpful turn, in terms of terrorising a whole country and causing problems for Colombia in terms of international relations, economic development and human rights subject areas. The FARC and ELN, if they adhere to any framework at all, for their actions, certainly cannot argue that this framework is in any way moral and it certainly has not been consistent. As such, for these groups of terrorists, who literally hold a country to ransom, there can be no argument of a consistent moral framework that is in place, and there can be no argument for the existence of any consistent moral framework for the human rights abuses they cause and the economic and political havoc they creat e for Colombia.The next terrorist group we shall look at is the Sendero Luminoso ( flare grade) of Peru, which was formed as a political guerrilla group, in response to Perus military dictatorship, with the stated aim of achieving free elections within Peru and placing a communist party in control of Peru, through the Pensamiento Gonzalo ideology (named later on the thinking of Guzman, the Shining runnings leader). The Shining Path took to violent means as a way of achieving its stated aims, and, indeed, is known to be responsible for some of the worst massacres in Peruvian history, with Perus human rights record being atrocious, on account of the atrocities committed by the Shining Path. The Shining Path seized control of large areas of Peru, but their communist ideas were never popular with the Peruvian populace, and so their guerrilla war began to lose support and its base began to falter. The Shining Path support fell dramatically following Guzmans capture in 1992, and the ca pture of his successor several years later, with its successor movement, Proseguir, having very few supporters and arguing mainly for the release of former Shining Path members.In terms of the moral framework of the Shining Path, their aims were very clear and political in scope, although the situation was complicated as Fujimori, the Peruvian Prime Minister at the time, branded anyone who spoke against the government a terrorist (see Burt, 2006). Even though the Shining Path were plain terrorists who, it has been proven, were responsible for many civilian deaths, the Shining Path had a consistent moral framework to which they askd and which dictated their actions the installation of fabianism within Peru. This framework was the reason for the establishment of the group, and was consistent across the time during which the Shining Path was energetic within Peru. Thus, in this guerrilla group, unlike in the guerrilla groups active in Colombia, the moral framework for the Shining Pa ths actions was very clear and fixed, and consistent across the history of the Shining Path.We have therefore discussed two cases, of three guerrilla groups, two in Colombia, one in Peru, two of which (the FARC and the ELN) have evolved in their ideology and moral framework as they moved through time, and one of which (the Shining Path) had a consistent moral framework in place for their actions, which informed, supported and dictated their actions in terms of achieving their stated aims (i.e., the installation of communism within Peru). Thus, terrorists, and terrorist groups, as we have seen in the case of the FARC and ELN, can evolve and change, in terms of their aims and their objectives, and the means used to achieve these aims. As such, their moral frameworks also change and move with the new orientation.Under this analysis, it is implicit that terrorists have a moral conscience, that although this moral conscience allows them to commit acts that are considered terrorist acts b y society, they do have a moral conscience, and one that can be called upon to support their objectives and their aims, and which can be used as a way of justifying any terrorist acts that they commit. As we have seen, as Atram (2006) concludes, the emergence of terrorism cannot be explained by a single political root cause, such as the presence of foreign military forces or the absence of democracy, as other factors such as psychological motivations, or religious inspirations can also contribute to the desire to undertake terrorist acts. As Atram (2006) argues, any simplistic accounts of terrorism, why it happens and what leads people to become terrorists, are bound to failure as terrorists have underlying moral values and group dynamics which are complex themselves and also intertwined in a complex manner. Only when these root causes are fully understood by decision-makers will organisational and ideological solutions that could defuse the panic of terrorism be found (Atram, 2006 ). As such, as Atram (2006) argues, terrorists have a consistent moral framework within which they work, allowing them to unilaterally act, in concert, to achieve their ends.Thus, the FARC and the ELN, and the Shining Path, although, as we have seen, they have, and continue to, commit terrorist acts, they can call upon a moral framework for these acts, in terms of having justifiable reasons for their objectives and aims, and the way in which these objectives are achieved, such that these acts are perpetuated under what they consider to be a moral framework. That the rest of society does not see this framework as moral, under normal societal definitions of moral, is beyond them, beyond their understanding for, as Bandura (1990) argues, moral standards do not function as fixed internal regulators of conduct, but rather, self-regulatory mechanisms do not engage until they are activated, and there are many ways in which these regulatory mechanisms can be disengaged, allowing the emergen ce of different types of conduct with the same moral standards.This paper has discussed the issue of whether terrorists can appeal to a consistent moral framework. As we have seen, there are many definitions of terrorism in use in the literature, as there are disagreements as to the definition of terrorism2, as some academics argue that the motives that fuel some terrorists are politically valid. Indeed, terrorist and terrorism seem to have been, and be, somewhat flexible terms, depending on the political affiliation of the terrorist/terrorist act many people would call the acts committed by the Israelis against the Palestinians, for example, terrorist acts, but these seem to be supported by the United States government, as Israel is currently one of the highest recipients of United States foreign aid. Similarly, as we have seen, Nelson Mandela, ex-President of South Africa, and Nobel Laureate, was once branded a terrorist and was imprisoned for decades for his terrorist acts a defi nition for terrorism, and the word terrorist thus seems to be flexible, depending on the political context and the aims that are trying to be achieved by the people supporting the country in which the terrorist is present.Although the word terrorist and the term terrorism are open to interpretation, by politicians, and under international law, as we have seen3, terrorists do subscribe to what they consider to be a moral framework for their objectives, and to support their acts to achieve these objectives. As we have seen from the two examples used here, these moral frameworks can stay still throughout the history of the terrorist group (as with the Shining Path) or can change over time in response to external factors or political events (as with the FARC and the ELN). Thus, the issue of whether terrorists can appeal to a consistent moral framework, I will argue, is valid indeed, although this framework may be seen as amoral by the rest of society, the terrorist defines their object ives as moral, under a moral framework, which for them is consistent in terms of leading to desired objectives. Whether this framework is consistent across time is a matter for discussion, for, as we have seen, some terrorist groups find their objectives changing with shifting external circumstances, and, as such, their framework, whilst remaining internally morally consistent, in terms of the objectives, is not externally consistent over time. As Atram (2006) argues, terrorists have a consistent moral framework within which they work, allowing them to unilaterally act, in concert, to achieve their ends it is this framework which allows them to function, as a unit, in order to achieve their aims and objectives.ReferencesAnnan, K., 2005. Larger Freedom. Speech given to the United Nations at the Security Council Meeting on 17th March 2005.Atram, S., 2006. The moral logic and produce of suicide terrorism. The Washington Quarterly 29(2), pp.127-147.Bandura, A., 1990. Mechanisms of mora l disengagement. In Reich, W. (ed.), Origins of terrorism psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind (pp.161-191). Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Burt, J-M., 2006. Quien habla es terrorista the political use of fear in Fujimoris Peru. Latin American Research Review 41(3), pp.32-62.Saul, B., 2006. Two justifications for terrorism a moral legal response. Foreign Policy in Focus, FPIF Policy Report. January 10th 2006. Available from http//www.fpif.org/pdf/papers/0601justifications.pdf Accessed on 30th April 2007.1Footnotes1 As part of their efforts to secure, and retain, money from the United States, through their War on Drugs programme.2 Although, as we have seen, the definition of terrorism currently in use by the UN is, any actintended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organisation to do, or abstain from doing, any act. (Annan, 2005). This d efinition is also used by the International Criminal Court, and by most human rights lawyers who are involved in prosecuting terrorist acts.3 with, as we have seen, for example, the war in Afghanistan bringing back many memories for the United States government, who supported the Afghan Mujahideen as freedom fighters during the United States war with the Soviet Union, but recently, the United States government branding breakaway Afghan groups as terrorists, and launching a war in Afghanistan to stop them in their terrorist acts.