Is It Terrorism To Attack Terrorists? Is it Terrorism to Attack Terrorists? Terrorism is politically motivated violence intended to intimidate and terrify. When U.S. embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania, Washington decided to retaliate. On Aug. 20, 1998, the U.S.
launched military strikes at what they believed were terrorist-related bases in Afghanistan and Sudan. They believed these groups played a key role in the embassy bombings. Some believe that retaliation and a show of force are acts of self-defence that will eventually result in the destruction of terrorism. Others believe that this attack was merely a demonstration of power and brute force against the Afghan people. The U.S. has formulated many points to justify the reprisal attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan. They claim that terrorist acts, such as the bombing of the U.S. embassies, should not go unpunished.
The mounting threat of terrorist attacks on American targets must be controlled. These murderous factions have untenable goals and unlimited bombs, and they must be stopped before terrorism gets out of hand. U.S. allies supported the bombings and described them as part of a global effort to combat terrorism. This act shows terrorists that democratic governments will act decisively to prevent their evil crimes. The bombings were necessary to send a message that terrorist attacks would not be tolerated and to try to prevent further violence. Conversely, some argue that the U.S. is committing international terrorism themselves.
The United States regularly uses violence for political motives, to intimidate and terrify, which is the exact definition of terrorism. The bombings in Afghanistan and Sudan were called anti-terrorist raids, but they were actually acts of terrorism by the U.S. themselves. These bombings are not self-defence as the U.S. claims because the attacks on the embassies did not pose an immediate danger to the country itself.
Some even claim that these U.S. hostile policies are an act of war against a sovereign country. If the U.S. principles of retaliation were to be applied to other situations, then all around the world there are countries that have a perfect right to bomb Washington. For instance, there were reports that a Miami-based organization was involved in bombings in Cuba that claimed civilian lives. According to U.S. justification, Cuba would have the right to drop bombs in Washington.
But these principles of retaliation only apply to the strong, and it states that the strong are allowed to attack the weak and defenseless any time they want. In response to terrorism, further terrorism is not authorized. According to the UN Charter, it is clear that this use of violence is blatantly illegal. Law-abiding states should refrain from using violence and try to prosecute the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, rather than resorting to the same tactics. People who carry out terrorist attacks are culpable and should be punished just like any other crime.
The way to deal with the perpetrators of such violence is to gather evidence, track them down and seek extradition for trial. There is little evidence that this type of retaliation accomplishes any concrete actions that would have effects on combating terrorism. The U.S. bombings only serve as retaliation. The American people want to feel a sense of security that these terrorists have been punished, and they are no longer wreaking havoc. If it takes the use of violence to give Americans peace of mind, the U.S.
will bomb any country for revenge and as a show of power. The U.S. is the only remaining superpower, and there is no question that it can throw its weight around. The question is, are such attacks productive, are they actually going to reduce terrorism? In this case, the U.S. is trying to solve violence with violence, fighting fire with fire.
It does not make sense to use terrorist tactics in a war against terrorism. Legal Issues.