Can Terrorism be Justified as Legitimate Political Violence?

The IRA/AlQaeda. Can their actions be justified?

The U.S. Department of Defence describes terrorism as the use of violence against people to induce intimidation and fear for political or social gain: “The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." . Terrorist groups usually have a variety of demands or changes that they want to gain out of their violence or threats, it is their aims that some people may understand, e.g; during The Troubles most Catholics agreed with the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in that they wanted to force the UK to negotiate a withdrawal from Northern Ireland. However, few agreed with the violence caused in order to attempt to achieve this goal, not only were the IRA causing harm to Protestants, but they were also causing harm to Catholics. While i can understand some of the frustration terrorist groups like the IRA felt during The Troubles, I don't believe that the threat of violence and the deaths of innocent civilians from any terrorist group can ever be justified as legitimate political violence.

Motivated by promises of rewards in the after life, some terrorists are driven by religious reasons to kill as many non believers and unfaithful as possible, which is usually the main driving force behind these threats. For example; the United States pulled soldiers from Saudi Arabia as a result of the 9/11 attack even though the U.S. military had been building up its forces in that country for over a decade. Terrorist strategy elicits how far they will go publicly, to achieve their set goals. The unpredictability of these threats are what frightens the public for their safety and therefore results in the government making changes to ensure their populations safety. Al-Qaeda and the Tamil Tigers, both extremist groups, engage in terrorist activity because, it is frequently successful in achieving their goals. However, not all terrorists aim to harm innocent civilians and actually don't want to cause any harm at all, they only use the fear of the violent threat to their advantage, hoping that the group/government capable of granting their goals will do so under the pressure and fear they have caused. For instance, if terrorists hijack some aircraft transporting only officials who are clearly responsible (in a liability sense) for significant injustice, demanding rectification, retribution etc. surely this sort of act, if generalisable, is morally justified.

Can some acts of terrorism be justified as legitimate political violence? The sort of act which no violence is being caused can be argued as morally justified if the aim is to seek rectification and justice for what they believe is a significant injustice.

Another terrorist organisation, the IRA or as they are also known, the provisional IRA, are an Irish Catholic terrorist group who were rife during The Troubles 1968 – 1998, in an aim to end British rule in Northern Ireland. Many Catholics described the IRA as freedom fighters and not terrorists, this persona of ‘freedom fighters’ led to many terrorist sympathisers and less people labelling the group as terrorists. This is seen more recently with white men in the media, excusing terrorist behaviour because of mental illness; compared to a muslim committing a similar crime, they would be bombarded with racist remarks, discrimination and consequently causing radicalisation to become synonymous with islamic terrorism. This then links fear and uncertainty to a whole population, creating ‘us’ and ‘them’. Although, The Troubles that affected Northern Ireland are over, due to the Good Friday Agreement 1998, the aftermath of the events that shadowed Northern Ireland are still very real and current which is shown through the attacks as recent as 2019 that are being claimed by the IRA.

On 19th January 2019 a car bomb went off at the Bishop Street Courthouse in Londonderry, which the IRA claimed responsibility for. I can understand the IRA’s frustration with the British Army; Bloody Sunday was a mass shooting on 30th January 1972, British soldiers shot 26 unarmed civilians during a protest march against internment without trial as a result of this 14 died. Many victims were killed whilst running from soldiers as well as trying to help people already wounded, with 2 being run down by army vehicles. This was the deadliest incident during the conflict which led to a significant increase in support for the IRA. Two investigations were held in the immediate aftermath by the British government but this only cleared the soldiers and British authorities of blame. The Attorney General then made a proposal to rule out any further inquests and inquiries into killings during the 30 years of The Troubles in 2013.

Not only did the British Army slaughter unarmed civilians, they also wrongly convicted six men for Birmingham pub bombings in 1975, who were falsely imprisoned for almost 17 years. One of these men John Walker, a relative of mine, spoke about his treatment during this time in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph: ‘The way the victims of Bloody Sunday and the Hillsborough disaster were treated was similar to us: vilified in the media, lied to and cover-up after cover-up … I still got parts of my body that is not right... they knocked all my teeth out... I'll carry these scars to my grave.’

It is clear that you can empathise with those affected by the British Army, the wrongfully convicted, the innocent who have been murdered and their frustration with injustice which continues to this day, but can the violence of the IRA be justified If the violence used by the British Army cannot? Peter Mandelson, a labour politician, told Channel 4 in a documentary on the 9/11 attacks, 'I think the distinction we have to make is not between good and bad terrorists …. But a terrorist organisation which is engaged in a ceasefire, which is committed to a peace process, whose political representatives take part in political institutions, and that's the difference.’ labelling the IRA as freedom fighters, I disagree, while you can understand what the IRA are fighting for and the frustration at British soldiers who acted illegally, the violence they use to get their point across is the definition of a terrorist organisation and therefore cannot be justified as legitimate political violence. No terrorist should be labelled as a freedom fighter, especially the IRA who knowingly placed bombs which would kill children e.g. the Omagh bombings. Yes the British Army had a part to blame, however the IRA were no better, and definitely not freedom fighters.

How can any individual or group be morally justified and seen as taking part in legitimate political violence when the use of threatening with violence begs the question whether these terrorist groups who have not yet used violence, would follow through on these threats if the government in charge of achieving their goals didn't make the changes they were asking for. The fact that these groups feel comfortable in making their violent behaviour known, I believe, makes their actions not justified as legitimate political violence. Although, if violence as i have said cannot be justified nor can it be classed as legitimate political violence then how can most people see war as just? Surely the view that violent behaviour can never be justified especially when it affects innocent civilians, would mean that legitimate war would become illegitimate? However, should an act of war be committed on a country, that country's government would consider retaliation as an act of self defence and therefore it is highly likely that most people would see this as a just war. Therefore, no act of terrorism can be justified as legitimate political violence; yet violence itself can be just in situations such as self defence or in retaliation to an act of war, meaning violence can be politically legitimate to a certain extent.

Therefore, no terrorist action can be morally justified when groups like Al-Qaeda and the IRA kill innocent civilians in an attempt to reach their goals. Violence itself to a certain extent can be justified as said before in situations such as self defence, however very rarely if not ever, do terrorist groups commit violent attacks as a form of self defence; which is why they cannot be justified as legitimate political violence.