Terrorism

Najib Azmi Mikati is the Prime Minister of Lebanon. Mikati was elected by Parliament on 2011 January 25 and became acting Prime Minister until 5 months later on June 13 when the government was formed and he officially became Prime Minister.

Mikati is a Sunni Islam, fulfilling the unwritten National Pact of 1943 giving the position of Prime Minister to a Sunni Islam. Mikati is also a billionaire, having made his money in telecommunications.

As this is an open question, there are many different views:

Answer 1 - No

Terrorism cannot be justified, as it is nearly always the case that aggressive acts of terrorism are perpetrated by individuals who do not represent the majority of society. The terrorist is an individual who cannot achieve his or her goals through the usual and accepted channels of government and democracy, as these primarily cater for the needs of the greater proportion of a society rather than those of a dissatisfied minority. Therefore, faced with his or her inability to achieve their individual goals, and unable to accept the decisions made by the majority, for the benefit of the majority, the terrorist merely resorts to mindless violence against the majority, in a futile attempt to change the majority decisions made. As the terrorist has clearly lost the political debate on the issues with which they are primarily concerned, it would seem unjust to attempt to further their minority cause by attempting to exterminate random members of the majority.

Therefore, the answer to this query is that terrorism cannot be justified.

Answer 2 - Maybe

Maybe Terrorism can be justified. If you truly study what the American Army did when they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, you will expect terrorism to rise. They killed thousands of innocent children and women and tortured thousands of innocent men without any proof of them being guilty. In one case, a soldier entered a pregnant Muslim woman's home, he stabbed her in her stomach, pulled the fetus out, and then killed her. By doing these king of things, Terrorism is expected.

Answer 3 - Depends on the Reading of the Question

The question as worded is vague and so a proper answer requires the different readings of the question to be compared.

If the question is asking if it is possible for people to justify terrorism, the answer is: Yes. People justify all sorts of things which are morally repugnant, usually in furtherance of some "greater good". For example, the writer of Answer 2, justifies terrorism because it appears to be the only way to counter the violence of an occupying army. Others justify terrorism because it helps promote the establishment of new states for disenfranchised minorities (such as in Palestine, Sri Lanka, or Northern Ireland).

If the question is asking whether or not terrorism actual is justified in a moral sense, the answer is: No. Terrorism is determined by having the following definition with six distinct parts: (1) The actions of a person who (2) uses violence (3) against civilian populations (4) in order to provoke fear among that civilian population (5) in order to instigate for political change in the country where the civilians were attacked (6) in line with the preferences of the person who used the violence. (We will return to this definition later.)

In most justifications provided for terrorism, such as in Answer 2, it is viewed as the only way to attack an occupying army, but notice the logical fallacy here. Person A attacks/represses Person B, so in retaliation Person B kills Person C. We know that it is immoral for Person B to kill Person C no matter how horrible Person A is to Person B. It is certainly moral for Person B to defend himself against Person A. It may even be moral to kill Person A (this is more of a grey area though). However, given that Person C has nothing to do with the acts of Person A, it is improper to harm him in any way as retaliation for violence perpetrated by Person A. If we use the example provided in Answer 2, US soldier attacks/represses Iraqi Citizen, Iraqi Citizen bombs a store in Baghdad and kills 5 Iraqi Citizens. There is no justification for the killing of those five Iraqi Citizens, no matter how horrible the US soldier was. Only this US soldier should have retaliation directed at him.

It is worth noting that many people like to ignore the "civilian" aspect of terrorism and say that events such as the Islamic Jihad Organization's bombing of the US and French Barracks in Lebanon in 1983 are acts of terrorism. This is not the case and is just hyperbole used by those who were attacked to show their indignation. What it actually was was an unorthodox engagement of militaries and paramilitaries. In order for terrorism to exist, the victims must be civilian.

Terrorism is not justified under all definitions and causes. Terrorism is acts against civilians, children, old people, and innocent individuals. However, some westerners try to encourage terrorists in the Middle East (by providing them with weapons and training as well as with media support) just to serve their own goals and interests and not due to principles. Refer to related questions below.

Rationale

The Taliban took over Afghanistan because they have a certain set of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong and felt the need to impose their values on the rest of Afghanistan.

Method

Many of the Taliban's fighters come from the Islamic Extremist Mujaheddin who were trained and equipped by Americans in their fight against the Soviets from 1979-1989. Once armed and capable, they united behind a common repressive religious banner and collectively overpowered the warlords who controlled different parts of the country.

Osama bin Laden had 23 siblings.

Osama bin Laden and his siblings:

1. Salem bin Laden
2. Ali bin Laden
3. Thabet bin Laden
4. Mahrous bin Laden
5. Hassan bin Laden
6. Bakr bin Laden
7. Khalid bin Laden
8. Yeslam bin Ladin
   
9. Ghalib bin Laden
10. Yahya bin Laden
11. Abdul Aziz bin Laden
12. Issa bin Laden
13. Tarek bin Laden
14. Ahmed bin Laden
15. Ibrahim bin Laden
16. Shafiq bin Laden
17. Osama bin Laden
18. Khalil bin Ladin
19. Saleh bin Ladin
20. Haider bin Laden
21. Saad bin Laden
22. Abdullah bin Laden
23. Yasser bin Laden
24. Mohammad bin Laden

According to the U.S. Department of State, Hezbollah is still a terrorist group. Here are some reasons why the U.S. classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

A History of Violence

Hezbollah's violence against the U.S. began in 1982, with the kidnapping - but eventual release - of David Dodge. The most deadly violence occurred in 1983, when Hezbollah suicide bombers attacked the U.S. Embassy and marine barracks in Beirut. These two attacks resulted in the deaths of three-hundred and four Americans. Likewise, in 1984, Hezbollah attacked the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing two Americans and twenty-two Lebanese. During this period, Hezbollah also bombed a restaurant in Spain and hijacked a Kuwaiti Airlines plane. These attacks killed eighteen American servicemen and two U.S. civilians. In 1985, the Party of God hijacked TWA flight 847, killed a U.S. Navy diver, and held many other American civilians hostage. Additionally, Hezbollah kidnapped and murdered several dozen other Americans during the 1980s.1

The U.S. Government regarded these violent attacks against U.S. and Israeli civilians as inexcusable, and began to regard Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. By 1997, the United States decided to officially designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group.2 The U.S. justified this designation by claiming that Hezbollah's violent activities threatened American interests.

Controversy over Hezbollah's Terrorist Label

In spite of the United States' denunciation, Hezbollah began to act less like a terrorist organization and more like a political party and began nominating candidates for national elections. The following years witnessed a steady progression in Hezbollah's political strength. Many scholars argue that Hezbollah lost its radical religious agenda during the 1990s, including the desire to create an Islamic state.3 Hezbollah's goals became more pragmatic and began to stress social and political issues, rather than constantly demand the destruction of Israel. The Party built hospitals, schools, clinics, and libraries across southern Lebanon. The Party of God's political and social activities continued throughout the 1990s and gained the support of nearly all Shi'a Muslims, along with many Sunnis and Christians.

Additionally, Hezbollah reduced violent activities after Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Even the Israelis note that Hezbollah engages in violence only after Israel escalates its activities along the border.4 Most of the fighting on the Lebanon/Israeli border follows a "tit-for-tat" sequence, rather than continuous violence. In addition, the Party of God has refrained from attacking the U.S. in any way since 1989. Hezbollah also publically stated that the Party no longer considers the U.S. a target for violence.5

The Terrorist Label

Hezbollah's apparent transformation from violent resistance to political participant challenges the label of terrorist organization. The word terrorism invokes connotations of bloodshed and intolerance, not political participation and social programs as in Hezbollah's case. Currently, only the U.S., Netherlands, Canada, and Israel label Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

Yet, Hezbollah retains some associations that question the organization's complete separation from terrorist activates. The most dangerous of these associations is Hezbollah's cordial relationship with Iran. Iran remains a state sponsor of terrorism and a vehement enemy of the United States. The Iranian Government orchestrated most of Hezbollah's kidnappings during the 1980s and may have orchestrated the Beirut bombings.6 Iran donates $60-100 million a year to Hezbollah and the Party of God occasionally uses this money to train terrorists in Sri Lanka and Colombia. Hezbollah's close relationship with Tehran seriously questions the Party's total abandonment of terrorism.

Second, Hezbollah's practice of using human shields and kidnapping soldiers in its resistance against Israel remains problematic. Bruce Hoffman notes that terrorists often violate the rules of war, including taking civilian hostages, torturing captured soldiers, attacking embassies, and using civilians as shields.7 Hezbollah bombed embassies in the 1980s and 1990s, kidnapped, tortured, and killed many Israeli hostages, and constantly use civilians as human shields. During the 2006 War, Hezbollah frequently used residential areas as a base for its rocket attacks, hoping that Israeli Forces would hesitate to respond for fear of civilian casualties. Nevertheless, Israeli did attack the positions and many innocent Lebanese lives were lost.8 Hezbollah's violation of the rules of war and use of human shields indicates that it retains some terrorist elements.

Third, Hezbollah refuses to disarm and occasionally uses violence to fulfill its political objectives in Lebanon. In 2008, the Lebanese Government demand that the Party disarm. Instead of complying, the Party of God violently seized control of southern Beirut and portions of Druze territory. Additionally, Hezbollah forced the government to reorganize the cabinet and give the Party of God veto power over parliamentary decisions. Through violence, Hezbollah gained much of the political power it now possesses.9

Finally, Hezbollah continues to maintain a security wing known as Hezbollah International. Its former leader, Imad Mugniyah, was killed in Syria in 2008, but Hezbollah International continues to operate. This branch of Hezbollah remains extremely secretive, and Party leaders deny its existence. Over the years, however, the U.S. has pieced enough evidence to expose the terrorist practices of Hezbollah International. For example, in 1995, Singapore security forces foiled a Hezbollah International plot to attack Israeli and American vessels. Similarly, in 2001, Mexican authorities arrested a Hezbollah cell reportedly on its way to carry out attacks against Mexican officials. Likewise, in 2001, Canadian operatives reported that Hezbollah was attempting to sneak into the U.S. via the Canadian-U.S. border. Finally, Hezbollah's international branch continues to maintain relations with other known terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Iraqi militants, Hamas, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia.10 These practices indicate Hezbollah's continued status as a terrorist organization.

Conclusion

Hezbollah continues to transform socially and politically, but it retains some terrorist characteristics. Contemporary Hezbollah is very different from its radical origins in the 1980s. Nonetheless, the Party of God's association with Iran, violation of the rules of war, use of violence for political objectives, and its international branch justifies the United States' terrorist label.

1. Jeremy M. Sharp, "Lebanon: The Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah Conflict," CRS Report for Congress (August 14, 2006).

2. Combating Terrorism," The Official Report of the Cabinet-level Task Force Chaired by Vice-President George Bush (New Jersey: DIANE Publishing Co., 1987).

3. Cliff Staten, "From Terrorism to Legitimacy: Political Opportunity Structures and the Case of Hezbollah," Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution 8, no. 1 (2008): 32-49

4. Judith Harik, Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004), 167-168.

5. Rosemary Hollis and Nadim Shehadi, Lebanon on Hold (London: Chatham House, 1996).

6. Jaber, 97-143.

7. Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 26.

8. "Hezbollah's Human Shields," The Washington Times, July 30, 2006, accessed April 22, 2011, http://www.washi ngtontimes.com/news/2006/jul/30/20060730-093558-9976r/.

9. Bilal Y. Saab, "Rethinking Hezbollah's Disarmament," Middle East Policy 15, no. 3 (2008): 94-98

10. Jeremy Goldberg, "In the Party of God: Hezbollah Sets up Operations in South America and the United States," The New Yorker (October 2003): 21-29.