This book engages with the most urgent philosophical questions pertaining to the problem of terrorism. What is terrorism? Could it ever be justified? Assuming that terrorism is just one of many kinds of political violence, the book denies that it is necessarily wrong and worse than war. In fact, it may be justifiable under certain circumstances.

Without doubt, terrorism is one of the most vehemently debated subjects in current political affairs as well as in academic discourse. Yet, although it constitutes an issue of general socio-political interest, neither in everyday language nor in professional (political, legal, or academic) contexts does there exist a generally accepted definition of terrorism. The question of how it should be defined has been answered countless times, with as much variety as quantity in the answers. In academic discourse, it is difficult to (...) find two scholars who use the term ‘terrorism’ in the same way. -/- While it is impossible to formulate a definition which satisfies everyone, discussing the definition question is indispensable. The necessity to review existing definitions with a view to improving them is especially obvious in legal and political contexts. How terrorism is defined in these contexts has serious consequences, and if we lack clear definitions we run into problems. How can we have laws or take political measures against something we have not clearly defined? Without doubt, there exists a practical necessity for a definition in these fields. It is important to have clear standards for defining terrorism. -/- In my view, the definition should meet three basic criteria: first, it should cover those cases that we concurrently consider to be instances of terrorism (such as the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in September 2001 or those on commuting trains in Madrid Atocha in March 2004). That is, ideally, our definition of terrorism remains close to uncontroversial usages of the term. Second, the definition should abstain from morally judging the act in question. Later I will say more about so called “moral” definitions of terrorism. For now, it suffices to say that defining an action and evaluating it are distinct tasks and should remain so. Third, the definition must identify characteristics that are specific to terrorism alone, characteristics which clearly distinguish it from other phenomena. (shrink)

Autores como Lovecraft, Llopis, Todorov y Carroll han conceptualizado el terror para explicar la recepción que tiene el lector al corroborar un objeto artístico que cuenta con sus propiedades particulares, además de que el resultado que se obtiene es útil como recurso para la Literatura y el Cine. En cambio, al hacer referencia al terror romántico, se alega a una de las múltiples manifestaciones que adopta este paradigma en la actualidad. Para este estudio, delimito su precisión léxica (convencional), (...) que es identificable por abordar los mecanismos que producen la destrucción de la noción del amor, la aniquilación del personaje que se respalda en este dogma y la intervención macabra del manipulador en las obras artísticas de esta índole. Estas peculiaridades se adecúan principalmente al funcionamiento de un psicodinamismo de confrontación del bien con el mal, que es notoria en las estrategias de manipulación que son empleadas en las relaciones de pareja de Cuentos malévolos (1904), al igual que la exposición a situaciones de riesgo y la ausencia de criterios ético y religioso. (shrink)

In contemporary academic, political, and media discourse, terrorism is typically portrayed as an existential threat to lives and states, a threat driven by religious extremists who seek the destruction of Western civilization and who are immune to reason and negotiation. In many countries, including the US, the UK, and Australia, this existential threat narrative of terrorism has been used to justify sweeping counterterrorism legislation, as well as military operations and even the use of tactics such as torture and indefinite detention. (...) In this chapter I outline the components of the existential threat narrative, and explain how critical terrorism scholars have critiqued this narrative on two main grounds: that it is based on false empirical claims about the nature, scale, and motivations of modern non-state terrorism, and that counterterrorism policies and practices based on this narrative have had extremely destructive consequences for individuals, communities, and states—in some cases, causing far more destruction than terrorism itself. In the final section I offer some suggestions for the direction of future terrorism research in light of these critiques of the existential threat narrative. (shrink)

Tough anti-terrorism policies are often defended by focusing on a fixed minority of the population who prefer violent outcomes, and arguing that toughness reduces the risk of terrorism from this group. This reasoning implicitly assumes that tough policies do not increase the group of 'potential terrorists', i.e., of people with violent preferences. Preferences and their level of violence are treated as stable, exogenously fixed features. To avoid this unrealis- tic assumption, I formulate a model in which policies can 'brutalise' or (...) 'appease' someone's personality, i.e., his preferences. This follows the endogenous prefer- ences approach, popular elsewhere in political science and economics. I formally decompose the effect of toughness into a (desirable) deterrence effect and an (un- desirable) provocation effect. Whether toughness is overall effi cient depends on which effect overweighs. I show that neglecting provocation typically leads to toughness exaggeration. This suggests that some tough anti-terrorism policies observable in the present and past can be explained by a neglect of provocation. (shrink)

First, I argue that the contestability of the term “terrorism” is insufficient to justify the targeting of those who are innocent noncombatants beyond reasonable doubt; second, that states could be as vicious, if not even more so, than nonstate actors could be in perpetrating acts that might be described as terrorism, and, third, that an adequate definition of international terrorism must focus on the actual victims of such despicable acts.

The adage, “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter,” is offered as a plausible example of evoking moral relativism. Moral relativists recognize no transcultural moral facts. So, for them, even the concept of harm would be subjective or context-sensitive. Yet one can appeal to cogent transcultural moral reasons to distinguish between deliberately and unjustifiably harming impeccably innocent people and those who might engage in justifiably harming those guilty of grave crimes. In the face of the preventable evil acts that (...) terrorists frequently perpetrate against impeccably innocent people, it is argued that moral relativists have a substantive burden of proof to demonstrate that no cogent transcultural moral reasons exist against the practice of terrorism. In the absence of such a demonstration, it is reasonable to believe that the practice of terrorism, while not totally defeating moral relativism, seems to undermine its credibility. (shrink)

In my replies to some of my critics I argue that while the practice of terrorism is never justified, I concede that it is rarely but sometimes excused. As result, those who engage in excusable terrorism has a substantial burden of proof. They need to offer a compelling argument to show that the harm caused by their terrorist violence is actually excused by the extenuating circumstances and the goal that they are trying to achieve, so they will not be morally (...) or legally blameworthy for bringing about such harm. I am assuming that they will need to demonstrate that the alleged harm is excusable because it is necessary to accomplish a worthy goal and there is no other reasonable way to obtain such a worthy goal without deliberately harming those who can be reasonably conceived of as impeccably or objectively innocent. That is, those who are innocent beyond reasonable doubt. (shrink)

Just war scholars are increasingly focusing on the importance of jus post bellum – justice after war – for the legitimacy of military campaigns. Should something akin to jus post bellum standards apply to terrorist campaigns? Assuming that at least some terrorist actors pursue legitimate goals or just causes, do such actors have greater difficulty satisfying the prospect-of-success criterion of Just War Theory than military actors? Further, may the use of the terrorist method as such – state or non-state – (...) jeopardize lasting peace in a way that other violent, for instance military, strategies do not? I will argue that there appears to be little reason to believe that terrorist campaigns are in principle less able to secure or at least contribute to a lasting peace than military campaigns; quite to the contrary. Or, put differently, if terrorism is an unlikely method for securing peace, then war is an even more unlikely one. (shrink)

Since terrorism has been a predominant news item it has been interchangeably linked with Islam in most cases. Terrorism itself and the processes involved that lead to terrorism is referred to as radicalization. These are complex and do not fit with a standard profile nor group.

Shortly before his death in 2004, Jacques Derrida provocatively suggested that the greatest problem confronting contemporary democracy is that ‘the alternative to democracy can always be represented as a democratic alternative ’. This article analyses the manner in which certain manifestly anti-democratic practices, like terror and torture, come to be taken up in defense of democracies as a result of what Derrida calls democracy’s ‘autoimmune’ tendencies.

Terrorist violence is often condemned for targeting innocents or non-combatants. There are two objections to this line of argument. First, one may doubt that terrorism is necessarily directed against innocents or non-combatants. However, I will focus on the second objection, according to which there may be exceptions from the prohibition against killing the innocent. In my article I will elaborate whether lethal terrorism against innocents can be justified in a supreme emergency. Starting from a critique of Michael Walzer’s account of (...) supreme emergency, I will argue that the supreme emergency exemption justifies the resort to terrorism against innocents to avert moral disasters such as genocide and ethnic cleansing, provided that the criteria of last resort, proportionality and public declaration are satisfied. (shrink)

The range of the aesthetic has expanded to cover not only a wider range of objects and situations of daily life but also to encompass the negative. This includes terrorism, whose aesthetic impact is central to its use as a political tactic. The complex of positive and negative aesthetic values in terrorism are explored, introducing the concept of the sublime as a negative category to illuminate the analysis and the distinctive aesthetic of terrorism.

Understanding Terrorism in the context of Global Security -/- Author / Authors : Shreyasi Ghosh Page no. 89-106 Discipline : Political Science/Polity/ Democratic studies Script/language : Roman/English Category : Research paper Keywords: Terrorism, Violence, Threat, Global Security, Globalization.

Assigning responsibility for terrorist actions requires, among other things, understanding of the factors that motivate and entrench terrorist beliefs. This chapter endorses a normative approach to the epistemology of terrorism called multidimensionalism, focusing on etiological questions about the sources and causes of terrorist beliefs. The chapter offers a description of multidimensionalism informed by recent work by Quassim Cassam, exemplified in terrorism studies by Richard English and Lisa Stampnitzky, among others. When etiological studies of terrorist beliefs fail to be properly multidimensional, (...) they run the risk of becoming epistemically myopic, a concept elaborated in terms of failures of explanatory breadth and depth. The dangers of epistemic myopia are illustrated with a critical discussion of two influential models of the etiology of terrorism, the radicalization model and the rational agent model. The author concludes that properly multidimensional approaches to the etiology of terrorism are vital to attempts to assign responsibility for terrorist actions. (shrink)

“Terrorism” is a polysemic, emotionally laden term. Belligerent groups could be labeled “terrorist” by some and “freedom” or “guerrilla” fighters by others. Similarly, the same organization or group could be labeled “terrorist” by some and “humanitarian organization” by others. Hence, depending on which perspective people take in a given conflict, and how the international community reacts to the conflict in question, members of different organizations or groups might end up being classified in a negative sense as terrorists or in a (...) positive sense as freedom fighters. Such perspectivism partly explains why so much disagreement exists on the meaning, justification, or excuse of terrorism. (shrink)

Any intelligent discussion of terrorism must demarcate its subject matter, for the term ‘terrorism’ is differently understood and where there is no accord on its meaning there is little chance for agreement on its application or normative status. The best course is to sketch a morally neutral definition that classifies as ‘terrorist’ as many widely-agreed upon cases as possible. Definitions that explicitly render terrorism illegitimate make classification contentious, and it is more informative to base moral assessment on an examination of (...) the case rather than through apriori stipulation. Most writers on the topic agree that terrorism is (i) a deliberate use or threat of violence, (ii) politically-motivated, and (iii) directed against non-military personnel, that is, against civilians or noncombatants. Taking these as the only essential features of terrorism, the simplest and more accurate reportive definition is this: Terrorism is deliberate, politically-motivated violence, or the threat of such, directed against civilians.1 By contrast, Ted Honderich describes terrorism as small-scale violence, driven by a political aim, that violates national or international law and is prima facie morally wrong. He thereby counts a good deal of resistance activity and guerilla warfare as terrorist, even when directed against military personnel, while excluding the large-scale military actions of governments. Of course, he may define the word as he chooses, but given its common.. (shrink)

I argue against the Doctrine of Double Effect’s explanation of the moral difference between terror bombing and strategic bombing. I show that the standard thought-experiment of Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber which dominates this debate is underdetermined in three crucial respects: (1) the non-psychological worlds of Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber; (2) the psychologies of Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber; and (3) the structure of the thought-experiment, especially in relation to its similarity with the Trolley Problem. (...) (1) If the two worlds are not identical, then it may be these differences between the two worlds and not the Doctrine of Double Effect to explain the moral difference; (2a) if Terror Bomber and Strategic Bomber have the same causal beliefs, then why does Terror Bomber set out to kill the children? It may then be this unwarranted and immoral choice and not the Doctrine of Double Effect that explains the moral difference; (2b) if the two have different causal beliefs, then we can’t rule out the counterfactual that, had Strategic Bomber had the same beliefs as Terror Bomber, she would have also acted as Terror Bomber did. Finally, (3) the Strategic Bomber scenario could also be constructed so as to be structurally equivalent to the Fat Man scenario in the Trolley Problem: but then the Doctrine of Double Effect would give different answers to two symmetrical cases. (shrink)

James Olson, author of the book Fair Play: The Moral Dilemmas of Spying (p.15), questions “What actions by a state are permissible in pursuing the state’s interests? Are lying, cheating, manipulation, deception, coercion and other techniques of espionage and covert action justifiable in national self-defense?” To expand his thought, to that end, I say, “Can different moral and ethical theories co-exist during war or conflict?” Can we extend our range of options in dealing with terrorism globally in an effort to (...) satisfy our national security objectives using principles outlined in the many moral and ethical theories? In short answer, yes. This paper will address moral and ethical theories that I believe justify the use of a range of options or extended options to combat terrorism to meet our national security objectives without severely corrupting our universal morals or ethics. -/- Strictly speaking from a theory basis, and a common sense approach-with no religious affirmations-I ascribe to a combination of principles of the Just War theory and Moral Absolutism philosophy. It is my belief that we cannot engage terrorists’ Realpolitik and normative ethical relativist frame-of- mind to justify the use of force based on one moral or ethical theory or philosophy. A combination of principles from the Just War theory and Moral Absolutism philosophy can morally and ethically justify engagement in combating terrorism. (shrink)

The thought of Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) helps to place Islamist terrorism within a certain tradition of warfare and political theory. In fact, this form of violence can be clarified by Schmitt’s theoretical endowment, as this brief paper attempts to do. The end of the legal framework of the jus publicum europaeum and the emergence of non-state actors have put into question centuries-old certainties. Schmitt’s theory could help to put order in political concepts today ideologically misused. And his opposition to any (...) universalistic tendencies questions not only Jihadi ideology but also Western anti-terroristic rhetoric, which is equally part of the ongoing global war of annihilation feared by Schmitt during his entire life. (shrink)

Debates about terrorism and technology often focus on the potential uses of technology by non-state terrorist actors and by states as forms of counterterrorism. Yet, little has been written about how technology shapes how we think about terrorism. In this chapter I argue that technology, and the language we use to talk about technology, constrains and shapes our understanding of the nature, scope, and impact of terrorism, particularly in relation to state terrorism. After exploring the ways in which technology shapes (...) moral thinking, I use two case studies to demonstrate how technology simultaneously hides and enables terroristic forms of state violence: police control technologies and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones. In both these cases, I argue that features of these technologies, combined with a narrative of precision and efficiency, serves to mask the terroristic nature of the violence that these practices inflict and reinforces the moral exclusion of those against whom these technologies are deployed. In conclusion, I propose that identifying acts of terrorism requires a focus on the impact of technologies of violence (whether they are “high tech” or not) on those most affected, regardless of whether users of these technologies conceive of their actions as terroristic. (shrink)

In combating international terrorism, it is important to observe some basic principles, such as that international law must be complied with, care should be taken that one does not proceed in such a way that future terrorists are recruited, and one does not oneself become a terrorist. Unfortunately, the war on terrorism.

Why do we regard one act of civilian targeting as morally worse than the other? This argumentative analysis argues that moral judgment requires more than the fact of civilian harm; it depends on how and why such harm occurs. Drawing on Alex Schmid’s definition of terrorism as a communicative method of violence, the paper examines two factors essential to moral evaluation: rationale (the motives and foreseeable consequences underlying an act) and justification (whether civilian harm can be defended within a coherent (...) ethical framework). Beyond its moral and political dimensions, terrorism also functions within an economic logic. States and non-state actors allocate resources and impose costs on adversaries. Incorporating this “moral economy of violence” clarifies how civilian targeting manipulates economic vulnerabilities for political ends. Thus, labeling all civilian harm as evil without regard to cause is ethically irresponsible. True moral judgment must rest on both rationale and justification. (shrink)

Many paradigmatic forms of animal rights and environmental activism have been classed as terrorism both in popular discourse and in law. This paper argues that the labelling of many violent forms of direct action carried out in the name of animal rights or environmentalism as ‘terrorism’ is incorrect. Furthermore, the claim is also made that even those acts which are correctly termed as terrorism are not necessarily wrongful acts. The result of this analysis is to call into question the terms (...) of public debate and the legitimacy of anti-terrorism laws targeting and punishing radical activism. (shrink)

The present study aims to build a thorough understanding and causes of terrorism. It discusses probable psychological and sociological factors for terrorist activities. Paper elaborates the presence of psychopathologies and cultural influences that harbor mindsets of terrorist individuals. It also highlights the relationship between religion and violence and elaborates the impact of media and its role for terrorism. The identification of psycho-social factors linked with terrorism and violence serve as a way to better understand the phenomenon. This is likely to (...) promote peace, harmony, and love in Nigerian societies. (shrink)

On September 11, 2001, Americans were painfully reminded of a truth that for years had been easy to overlook, namely, that terrorism can affect every person in the world – regardless of location, nationality, political conviction, or occupation – and that, in principle, nobody is beyond terrorism’s reach. However, our renewed awareness of the ubiquity of the terrorist threat has been accompanied by wide disagreement and confusion about the moral status of terrorism and how terrorism ought to be confronted. Much (...) of the disagreement and confusion, I contend, is rooted in an inadequate understanding of just what it is that constitutes terrorism. In this paper, I offer the beginnings of a response to the challenge of terrorism by providing an account of what terrorism is and of some of the philosophical issues involved. My account is divided into two sections. In the first section I examine some of the difficulties involved in defining terrorism, and show that some of the most common “ordinary” understandings of terrorism are inadequate. In the second section I offer a working definition of terrorism that overcomes many of the difficulties outlined in the first section. I argue that terrorism consists in the use of “systematically unsystematic” violence (whether directed at combatants or noncombatants), and that the random or indiscriminate character of terroristic violence points us in the direction of seeing what is distinctively wrong with it. The fundamental problem is that terrorism is not committed to any rules of armed conflict or any principles that would facilitate the eventual containment or termination of the conflict. (shrink)

Infusing contemporary critical terrorism studies (CTS) with concepts and methodologies from philosophy and critical theory via a Baradian posthumanist agential realist perspective and (counter)terrorist cases and vignettes, this chapter argues for a retheorisation of (counter)terrorism. It does so, firstly, by reconceptualising terrorism and counterterrorism as complex assemblages consisting not only of discursive-material components – an entanglement now largely accepted within CTS and critical security studies (CSS) – but also of affective layers and more-than-human phenomena. Secondly, by analysing European urban (counter)terrorist (...) cases from the UK, Germany, France, and Spain, together with these cases’ surprising spacetime-jumping interlinkages underwriting what we here conceptualise as queer(ing) spacetimematterings, this chapter zooms in on the intra-actions taking place between human and more-than-human agential phenomena and their risk-managed urban environments. Lastly, extra analytical attention is paid to how, in this neoliberal day and age – here rephrased as control society-driven ‘situationscaping times’ – very specific macro- and micropolitical violence-preventing measures and efforts are employed in the fight against various manifestations of urban terror and terrorism. (shrink)

This articles exposes the methodological errors involved in attempting to operationalize or value-neutralize the concept of 'terrorism.' It defends, instead, an effects-based approach to the taxonomy of 'terrorism' that builds out from a central conceptual connection between the term's negative connotation and a widely shared moral presumption against the killing of innocent non-combatants. Although this approach to the core meaning of 'terrorism' is far from value-neutral, it has a number of virtues to recommend it. First, it has the political virtue (...) of even-handedness in the way it enables competing appraisals of asymmetric conflicts. Second, it is has the ethical virtue of being flexible enough to accommodate nuanced appraisals of various modes and degrees of terrorist violence. And third, it has the empirical virtue of being useful for purposes of rigorous social scientific research. (shrink)

This paper criticizes three assumptions regarding terrorism and the agents who carry it out: 1) terrorists are always indiscriminate in their targeting, 2) terrorism is never effective in combating oppression, and 3) terrorists never participate in fair negotiations as they merely wish to switch places with their oppressors. By criticizing these three prejudices against terrorism, the paper does not attempt to justify or excuse terrorism generally nor in the specific case of Sri Lanka which is examined. Instead, it creates the (...) necessary room for such justifications or excuses to be critically appraised by dismantling the popular myths surrounding terrorism. (shrink)

Hannah Arendt's rich and varied political thought is more influential today than ever before, due in part to the collapse of communism and the need for ideas that move beyond the old ideologies of the Cold War. As Dana Villa shows, however, Arendt's thought is often poorly understood, both because of its complexity and because her fame has made it easy for critics to write about what she is reputed to have said rather than what she actually wrote. Villa sets (...) out to change that here, explaining clearly, carefully, and forcefully Arendt's major contributions to our understanding of politics, modernity, and the nature of political evil in our century.Villa begins by focusing on some of the most controversial aspects of Arendt's political thought. He shows that Arendt's famous idea of the banality of evil--inspired by the trial of Adolf Eichmann--does not, as some have maintained, lessen the guilt of war criminals by suggesting that they are mere cogs in a bureaucratic machine. He examines what she meant when she wrote that terror was the essence of totalitarianism, explaining that she believed Nazi and Soviet terror served above all to reinforce the totalitarian idea that humans are expendable units, subordinate to the all-determining laws of Nature or History. Villa clarifies the personal and philosophical relationship between Arendt and Heidegger, showing how her work drew on his thought while providing a firm repudiation of Heidegger's political idiocy under the Nazis. Less controversially, but as importantly, Villa also engages with Arendt's ideas about the relationship between political thought and political action. He explores her views about the roles of theatricality, philosophical reflection, and public-spiritedness in political life. And he explores what relationship, if any, Arendt saw between totalitarianism and the "great tradition" of Western political thought. Throughout, Villa shows how Arendt's ideas illuminate contemporary debates about the nature of modernity and democracy and how they deepen our understanding of philosophers ranging from Socrates and Plato to Habermas and Leo Strauss.Direct, lucid, and powerfully argued, this is a much-needed analysis of the central ideas of one of the most influential political theorists of the twentieth century. (shrink)

In the present interview, Jacob Rogozinski elucidates the main concepts and theses he developed in his latest book dedicated to the issue of modern jihadism. On this occasion, he explains his disagreements with other philosophical (Badiou, Baudrillard, Žižek) and anthropological (Girard) accounts of Islamic terrorism. Rogozinski also explains that although jihadism betrays Islam, it nonetheless has everything to do with Islam. Eventually, he describes his own philosophical journey which led him from a phenomenological study of the ego and the flesh (...) to the study of past (witch-hunts, French Reign of Terror) and contemporary (jihadism) terror apparatuses. (shrink)

A inicios del siglo XX, ya era común comprender la idea del terror difundida en los textos occidentales. Sin embargo, cuando en el Perú se intenta emular ese estilo tardíamente, es notoria la disfuncionalidad inmanente de ese género literario. Cuentos malévolos (1904) de Clemente Palma resultó ser un ejemplo de esa manifestación artística que revelaba carencias de un trabajo que tuvo por objetivo impactar y asustar al lector de ese tipo de narración. Para comprobarlo, en este artículo, confrontaré con (...) los relatos del escritor peruano para explicar cuáles fueron esos errores que impidieron la óptima configuración del cuento de terror, supeditada fundamentalmente a la propuesta teórica de Nöel Carroll. (shrink)

Twenty years after September 11, the definition of terrorism remains a contentious issue. How to understand or not to understand ‘terrorism’ is by no means a purely academic exercise. The term has a history of being used to denounce certain types of political violence and their perpetrators as being wrongful per se. Like Tony Coady, I believe that it is not just possible but, in fact, crucial to separate the descriptive from the evaluative component if the concept is to be (...) informative at all and if we aspire to an open-ended inquiry into its distinctive wrongness. In The Meaning of Terrorism, Coady revisits and refines the themes of his writing on the topic over the past decades while providing in-depth discussions of many of the key figures in the debate on the ethics of war and terrorism. (shrink)

This is a discussion of the moral psychology of monstrous evil. It suggests that deliberate monstrously evil acts committed in the name of the good by moral agents arises from a peculiar vice which blinds them to the humanity of others. It also examines an opposing virtue, generosity.

“Imaginationland” is an Emmy winning, three‐part story from South Park's eleventh season that was later reissued as a movie with all of the deleted scenes included. This chapter talks about the connection between imagination and something philosophers like to call critical thinking‐that is, being able to cut through the crap and see things clearly‐something that seems to be in short supply these days, especially when it comes to thinking about terrorist threats. The chapter deals with unimaginative leadership by discussing a (...) scene from South Park that cuts to a debriefing room at the Pentagon. In more recent times, the use of the term “Terrorism” has broadened. In Bruce Hoffman's book, Inside Terrorism, he has identified several elements common among terrorist acts, as they are thought of today. (shrink)

Esta investigación tiene como objetivo la reconstrucción del concepto de terror en la primera década del siglo XX. La delimitación temporal se debe a que en ese lapso se publicó un compendio de relatos de tópico terrorífico, intitulado Cuentos malévolos (1904), del escritor peruano Clemente Palma. Para lograr la configuración semántica del término aludido, se recurre a la documentación de fuentes periodísticas de ese entorno (como El Comercio, La Prensa, Variedades, entre otros), para respaldar la percepción asumida del mismo. (...) A través de la confrontación de estos discursos, es notoria la influencia que recibe el autor por parte de las temáticas derivadas, como la asociación del terror con la criminalidad o el oscurantismo que se desenvuelven por personas desequilibradas. Igualmente, la ideología y la filosofía que se extraen se vinculan con el ateísmo y todo lo que critica y cuestiona los dogmas de la religión judeocristiana. (shrink)

Para este artículo, asumo las ediciones publicadas de Cuentos malévolos, compendio de relatos con un abordaje crítico de los valores y las ideologías tradicionales del Perú a inicios del siglo xx, con el fin de construir un panorama de su exégesis literaria y analizar la inclusión autoral de una variante novedosa del terror, distinguida por el desarrollo de elementos decadentes del romanticismo. Para la comprensión de esta cosmovisión inusitada regida por la maldad, será indispensable adoptar el tratamiento del amor (...) y su percepción autónoma como ejes de sus narraciones. (shrink)

This paper argues that norms cannot be derived from facts but emerge through subjects' attitudinal responses to factual indestructibility. Within the Is-Is' Gap framework—where facts can only stratify (Is → Is') and never annihilate (Is → Not-Is)—subjects confront an irreversible accumulation of consequences. This recognition generates what I call structural terror: not episodic fear, but an affect forced upon any subject aware that every action leaves permanent traces. Norms arise not as logical derivations but as post-hoc attributions of subjects' (...) stances toward this terror. I distinguish passive desire (reaction to facts) from active desire (endorsement of fact-addition), arguing that attribution depends on whether actions stem from coercion or endorsement. The paper concludes with a speculative vision of norm-internalization without external enforcement, though this remains a theoretical limit-case rather than a prescriptive claim. (shrink)

This article is featured in the book Terrorism in Africa: Ethnicity, Religion, and Politics, published by the Al-Mesbar Studies and Research Center (2024). This research aims to study the phenomenon of extremism and terrorism in East African countries, illuminating the root causes that have transformed this region into a breeding ground for radical extremist groups. Employing a multi-layered approach, the study distinguishes between two primary levels: the proliferation of extremist discourse and the emergence of terrorism as overt acts of violence. (...) It further explores the diverse sources of extremism and terrorism, encompassing all justifications employed, including religion and ethnicity. By unraveling these complex dynamics, the paper paves the way for exploring more effective solutions that transcend conventional counterterrorism approaches, with the aim of mitigating this crisis and fostering regional stability. (shrink)

This is the translation of a 1996 Japanese bestseller that addresses terrorism from the viewpoints of philosophy and the meaning of life. I do not believe in a religion, but I cannot acquire the meaning of life through science. How can I live in a post-religious age? -/- In the spring of 1995, the Aum cult released a chemical weapon in the Tokyo subway system, killing and injuring many people. The incident shocked society because there were many young scientists from (...) elite universities among the cult’s high-ranking followers. Why did an activity that began as a search for the meaning of life end in unprecedented terrorism with poison gas? As someone who was once an aspiring scientist and turned into a philosopher, I tried hard to find out where and why they went wrong. This is a book in which a philosopher sincerely asks young readers to think about what it really means to live in a society where no one clearly knows what to believe in. -/- [Contents] -/- Foreword to the English Edition -/- Preface -/- Chapter One Between Science and Religion 1. An Uncomfortable Feeling about Faith 2. A New Way of Thinking about Life and Death 3. Why Did Budding Scientists Turn to Aum? 4. Disappointment with Science 5. Things Natural Science Cannot Address 6. New Religions’ Pattern of Recruiting Scientists 7. Why I Cannot Believe in Religion 8. The Problem of Spirituality 9. My Message to You -/- Chapter Two What Are Mystical Experiences? 1. The Meaning of Mystical Experiences 2. The “If I Change, the World Will Change” Way of Thinking 3. Aspiring to Enlightenment 4. A Desire for Power 5. In the Narrow Space Between Mystical Experiences and Faith 6. My Mystical Experiences 7. My Experiences in a Qigong Community 8. The Mentality That Operates within a Closed World 9. The Sweet Nectar of “Only We Are Right” 10. The Enemy Is Inside You 11. A Philosophy of Worldly Desires -/- Chapter Three The Trap of Healing and Salvation 1. Aum and Yutaka Ozaki 2. The Turn towards Religion in Ozaki’s Music 3. Seeking His True Self 4. Rock and Roll as Healing 5. Who Killed Ozaki? 6. A Community of Shifted Responsibility -/- Chapter Four The Courage to Be Myself 1. Ineffective Prescriptions 2. Approaches Outside of Religion 3. The Gap Between Religion and Reality 4. Our Side’s “Blindfolding Structures” 5. What Feminism Brought to the Fore 6. The True Significance of the Aum Incident 7. Opening Yourself Up to “Mystery” -/- Afterword Afterword ― 2019. (shrink)

My essay begins by analyzing how Hegel and Honneth’stheory of recognition would seem to lend support to insurgentterrorists’ struggle for the right to self-determination. Insurgentterrorism often looks like a concretization of what Honneth calls themoral protest of the oppressed launched against the dominatingpowers. Insurgent terrorism also bears affinity to the politics ofrecognition in the sense that it challenges the legitimacy and authorityof the forces owned by the state, and seeks to gain public recognitioninstead for the legitimacy of their own cause. (...) Precisely because whatmatters uppermost to terrorists is the gaining of recognition for theircause as just, terrorists are eager to seize the mass media as a meansof spreading their ideas. My essay will end, however, by pointing outmajor differences between insurgent terrorism on the one hand, andHegel and Honneth on the other. (shrink)

This is a critical examination of Zizek's concept of ideology in his work on the Sublime of Ideology. His account on this connotes that people are basing only in the conscious state without considering the unconscious "I." This framework in psychology has led Zizek to relate it in the process of economics which is greatly manifested in the contradictory poles of the oppressor and the oppressed and its relationship to the process of commodities. Looking into this orientation, this leaves the (...) author to incorporate the ideological character of Zizek through the lens of Anti-Terrorism Law which is not seen in the naked eye. (shrink)

My concern today is with the last of these questions. But, it is virtually impossible to say anything intelligent about this matter unless some effort is made to delineate the phenomenon under scrutiny. So I will begin by addressing the first question, and this requires that something be said about the semantics and pragmatics of the terms, ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’.

This paper aims to debunk the spectre of terrorism through social capital. At the advent of the twenty-first century, the menace of terrorism becomes a global phenomenon. Undeniably, terrorism is an evil. The central thesis of social capital theory holds that social relationships matter. There are three central elements of terrorism: politics, terror and ideology. Terrorists plan political strategies using certain kind of ideology to create terror. To deal with all these three elements of terrorism, social capital can (...) be an effective weapon. For explicating the core contours of social capital theory, I draw on Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman and Robert Putnam. To deal with political, violent and ideological foundations of terrorism, I assert that social capital can be useful for countering all of these foundations. Putnam’s binding and bonding strands of social capital can potentially empower people to develop a social network between people, institutions and states to debunk political, violent and ideological roles of terrorism. Thus, a social capital of intellectuals can repudiate the ideological foundations of terrorism for bringing about global peace. (shrink)

Terror Management Theory (TMT) has generated over 300 empirical studies examining how mortality salience affects behavior across virtually every domain: tanning, smoking, health decisions, political attitudes, prejudice, punishment severity, martyrdom, military intervention, and climate change denial. Yet cryonics presents the most direct possible test case for TMT predictions. It is a technology claiming to prevent permanent death. The entire TMT research program has ignored it completely. This silence is anomalous. German and Tretter's recent analysis (2025) identifies moral psychology barriers (...) to cryonics adoption and notes "reluctant public discourse." But their paper makes no connection to TMT literature and proposes the problem is solvable through reframing. This paper documents the silence systematically, examines what German and Tretter's analysis misses, and demonstrates that triangulation with parallel patterns in atheism resistance reveals an architectural constraint in human cognition rather than a mere framing problem. The pattern has profound implications for assumptions underlying journalism, transparency, and diplomatic discourse. If simple arguments combined with existential stakes generate systematic quarantine rather than engagement, rational discourse models require fundamental revision. (shrink)

This study investigated Boko Haram and terrorist activities in Nigeria while looking at the ethical implications and responses of the Christians. The study was guided by two objectives which are to; analyse whether the acts of terror carried out by Boko Haram are ethical and examine the responses of the Christians with respect to Boko Haram acts of terror. However, the methods of exposition and critical analysis was used and content analysis was used to analyse data collected. Data (...) was collected from secondary sources like textbooks, journal articles, interviews, institutional materials and internet sources. The study also looked at concept of terrorism and a brief history of Boko Haram. The findings of the study showed that since Boko Haram acts of terrorism is simply a display of violence to terrify the populace and the government, it can be said that their actions and activities which include violence is unacceptable and could be termed wrong taking cognizance of the consequentialist view which opines that the morality of an action depends on its results. The ethics of care which is seen as a context-based approach to preserve relationship, negates Boko Haram acts of terror which apparently has a considerable effect on a number of relationships. The findings further showed that the Christians responded by rejecting to integrate with Muslims and also encouraged Christians to move to areas where there are major Christian settlements while others had to fall back to the natural tendency of self-preservation. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to define the methods of counteracting the financing of terrorism, as well as the obligations of public and private entities in this regard. The basis for the considerations will be the analysis of EU normative acts, and the leading research method will be the dogmatic method supported by the historical method.

This paper examines the responses to advanced and transformative technologies in military literature, attenuates the conclusions of earlier work suggesting that there is an “ignorance of transhumanism” in the military, and updates the current layout of transhuman concerns in military thought. The military is not ignorant of transhuman issues and implications, though there was evidence for this in the past; militaries and non-state actors (including terrorists) increasingly use disruptive technologies with what we may call transhuman provenance.