Justifications for Terrorism as Activism

First we must define terrorism. First, I must stress the fact that there is no international agreed upon definition for acts of terrorism. The best definition is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." With that definition, many organizations can be considered terrorist organizations. For example, the Ku Klux Klan, the United States Air Force, Mossad and many other organizations that we consider to not be terrorist related fit the definition.

Terrorism can be justified as a means of political activism, when all else fails and that the group advocating acts of terrorism are being withheld their natural rights. It could often be looked at as a natural response when Conventional Political Participation, and Civil Disobedience fails, and as history has shown, these two methods periodically fail. Political Participation only works if the group that feels oppressed has influence whether it is economical, political, strategic, or in rare cases empathetic. If a group has no power to influence through conventional political participation then they will resort to either civil disobedience or acts of terrorism. Civil Disobedience only works in societies that protect individual rights and if governments ure unable to cope with the disruptions caused by the civil disobedience. However in many scenarios where political rights are ignored, or the current conditions that are being protested are ignored then violent activities often erupt. So, when all else fails terrorism offers a channel in which the voices of the oppressed can be heard. Terrorism forces governments to deal with certain issues, for better or worse.