To understand the exact motives for terrorist acts, whether committed by a group or an individual, researchers must have a clear psychological profile of terrorists. This will then contribute to the development and improvement of counter-terrorism policies and procedures. In addition, it will also contribute to the development of counter-radicalisation and de-radicalisation programmes in Muslim- and non-Muslim-majority states. The central theme of terrorist narratives focuses on revenge, and this is clear from the analysis of terrorist propaganda. Therefore, the research examined the legal implications of revenge and the relationship between revenge and terrorist ideologies. It also addresses the psychological and sociological context of revenge and its effects. In addition, it examines the criminal elements of revenge, the scope and legal implications of revenge and terrorism. By demonstrating the direct link between revenge and terrorism, the researcher provides policymakers with useful information on how to deal with and prevent terrorists. Similarly, this study examines types of revenge and discusses the concept of justified and unjustified revenge. This helps to create a more detailed framework that can be used by policymakers when formulating measures to prevent terrorism and provides a successful counter-narrative to the public.
The second one is easier than the first and that`s how I`ll start there. My answer is no. Revenge should not be a legal justification for an otherwise illegal act. Excessively, revenge in its simplest form could be explained as an act of hurting a person in response to the injustice of the same person. However, some perspectives could also be considered in the case of revenge, as legal and ethical values do not allow a person to unduly harm others (Zaibert, 2006). Therefore, the extent of revenge should be based on the harm committed and inflicted by the individual or group. For example, a person is not allowed to kill other people to steal, if he does, it would be excessive revenge that is not allowed according to legal and moral perspectives. The act of revenge or the thought of revenge helps reduce stress levels by aligning things with the wrongdoer or transgressor. One of the most frustrating and annoying things is being hurt by the transgressor because he is going into pleasure and I suffer (Frijda, 1994). While revenge cannot repair what has been done after the damage has been done, it can restore the balance of suffering between victim and transgressor to some extent. When transgressors cause harm, they show that their victims do not deserve respect, but when victims retaliate, they can restore their self-esteem and they can show that they are not powerless (Chase, 2013). Again, the idea is based on blind revenge that makes no distinction between the innocent and the guilty.
This draws the line between revenge and terrorism. An example of revenge is the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States. Osama bin Laden saw these attacks on the WTC as revenge for the humiliations resulting from previous wars. In contrast, President Bush described these attacks on 9/11 as “evil and despicable acts of terrorism” that sought to overthrow the world`s greatest nation of freedom and opportunity (Klausen, 2015). Therefore, revenge could pose a threat to all humanity if it is excessive, like the 9/11 attacks. This, in turn, has provoked wars that have killed many innocent people who are not responsible for Osama bin Laden`s actions. It is crucial to educate young people about the harms of terrorist acts. In addition, the authorities must stress that the cost of revenge for terrorist actions is high.
From the analysis of the events that followed 11 September, it is clear that the terrorist`s desire to harm his presumed enemy actually caused more harm to terrorists and innocent people. Killing innocent children, women, the elderly, people with disabilities, security, worshippers and others for the crime not committed. The Rachhers will take away the laws that led to the destruction of lives and property. Expensive real estate would simply be damaged and destroyed in revenge, while such demolitions might not be renovated in time. Even the victim of revenge could be the breadwinner of a less privileged family, and his sudden death will cause financial hardship to that family. It could be argued that terrorist activities are acts of violence and aggression that may or may not be motivated by revenge. Newspapers and media reports are all filled with horrific acts of violence, which are more often described as acts of revenge. Over the past 15 years, the number of revenge suicide attacks has increased more than tenfold. In addition to the benefits known to be associated with revenge, there are also many costs associated with revenge.
While terrorist activities are aimed at focusing on offenders, there are also other innocent lives in the same area that may need to be revenged, especially if the terrorist activities involve suicide attacks. Rather than automatically reacting to injustice and transgression, some victims are more likely to compare the relative costs and benefits associated with revenge and then plan a scene of revenge; And if the negative effect of revenge outweighs its benefit, victims will choose other methods to deal with the aggression inflicted on them. Because of these higher costs, victims would rightly refuse to take revenge for other actions that help achieve similar results. Some of these measures could include expressing their pain and demanding compensation from governments or higher authorities and companies. Other measures could also include the choice of official channels to obtain justice from the police and other legal systems. Some people will even choose forgiveness and leave things behind to combat victimization. These forms of revenge are much safer and are known to produce positive outcomes such as increased collaboration between individuals and groups, improved physical and mental health, repair of relationships, and improved affects between individuals (Ysseldyk et al., 2007). They claim that these arguments are valid only with regard to imperfect revenge. Of course.
But the idea is that personal revenge is probably flawed by putting more than a third in the middle of the problem. Although the government does not bother to collect statistics on revenge killings, known as tha`r in Arabic, the practice is clearly endemic. Typically, a man kills a neighbor during a dispute over land, the police drag their feet on their investigation, the victim`s family loses patience and kills the killer – or, more commonly, an innocent relative – in retaliation. And so the cycle repeats itself. My point: Bring revenge, and most people get angry and talk in platitudes. I would like to know: What`s wrong with revenge? I think if people lived in a world where revenge is common and follows good social norms and is therefore effective, then we would have fewer problems, we see revenge as uncontrolled and dangerous, and maybe it could be in a society where social norms are not seen as an exceptionally powerful force. The problem I have with people who take revenge is when they are a third party. Since there are almost always several third parties, it is only fair that a group of them can band together and decide the degree of revenge. Ideally, everyone should get together, but it`s inefficient, we have a jury system instead.
Asked for explanation: I think I can elaborate: self-defense killings leave it to civilians to decide what they consider “appropriate killing.” Taking matters into your own hands will not create an egalitarian system with proportionate justice. For example, as mentioned above, Gary Ridgway (Green River Killer) murdered prostitutes because he hated them (and because they were easy to kill) and thought they deserved to die. He “took revenge” on those to whom he felt wronged and weakened society. Another example is George Zimmerman, who killed a boy because he looked suspicious. Both are situations of self-defense, but not situations with which we, as a society, necessarily agree. Letting people make personal calls about who is alive or dying means that anyone can make those calls.