Should terrorism be among the accepted means for achieving desirable political objectives?

Terrorism is the destruction of property or the detention or wounding or killing of civilians to bring about significant political changes in a particular government. Political objectives are essential to terrorism. The main objective of the blackmailer or kidnapper is usually pecuniary gain. While a terrorist is sometimes said to be blackmailing a government or 'kidnapping' its citizens, the actions of a terrorist, as such, always aim at producing a change in a governmental policy by using violence against property or people.

When terrorism works, it achieves its purposes in two basic ways: (1) It persuades a government to grant desired concessions by threatening to harm civilians, unless those concessions are forthcoming. (2) It creates pressure on the government by creating fear in the civilian population: citizens weary of violence or fearful of it plead with their government to meet the demands of the terrorists.

Those who suffer the effects of terrorism and who do not know of, understand, or sympathize with the political objectives of the terrorists will always condemn terrorism. And governments too, having an obligation to protect their citizens from loss of life and property at the hands of terrorists will always condemn terrorism directed against their own. So to them the answer to the question, "Should terrorism be permitted or forbidden?" is always clear: it should be forbidden. The potential terrorist, on the other hand, might ask, "Is it effective in bringing about the desired result?

Pro: Terrorism is effective. It brings the concerns of an oppressed people to the attention of the world. It readily mobilizes public opinion and, if it does not generate support for the terrorists, it typically moves the citizenry to pressure their leaders to remove the threat to their safety. Victims and their leaders may be persuaded to appease the perpetrators of violence. Thus, terrorists can gain a very significant leverage against a particular government and can produce important political changes.

Con: Terrorism is counterproductive. It stiffens the resistance of citizens and their governments against the terrorists. It strengthens the will of those at whom it is directed, so that there is less likelihood that terrorists will achieve the changes they desire.

Pro: The immediate targets of the terrorists-the 'innocent victims'-are in fact collaborators with their repressive governments. They are enemies just as their leaders are. Citizens of a democracy share in the responsibility for the policies of their government. When the acts of a government of a democratic society deny or subvert the rights of those in other countries, attacks on the citizens of that democratic society are actions in a just war against those who support oppressive policies.

Con: Terrorism harms innocent people, people who have no power to bring about the changes desired by the terrorists.

Pro: Terrorism is economical. It can enable those who want to bring about significant political changes to do so with a minimum investment of money and personnel. Terrorism is a quick, easy and relatively inexpensive way of bringing a cause to the attention of a large portion of a population. Indeed, it can attract the attention of the world.