Terrorism
Self-Determination
No group or individual has the right to commit a wrong on another person, even in the right to self-determination, but that is not always how the world works. No person has the right to do wrong to another at all. In many countries, punishment is retribution, for example, in many Arab countries; thieves are punished by having a hand cut off. When one person commits a wrong on another, because of a perceived wrong or right, then it is retribution, and that is wrong. Often the fight for self-determination can turn into a fight of retribution, and that should never be the case. Again, the world is not perfect, and so retribution exists, just as violence during self-determination. A group can experience self-determination without committing offenses on another, but it can be difficult. If they do commit offenses, they may acting out of retribution, and this is never the right way to solve problems or differences.
Certainly, people have the right to decide their own politics and independence. True, sometimes this does take violence for it to occur. That does not make the violence right. In a perfect world, there would be no need for violence, and self-determination would exist all over the world. That world does not exist, and for some groups to gain self-determination they must use violence. The American Revolution is a classic example. Would we still be under British rule if colonists had not taken up arms and fought for freedom? Perhaps. Therefore, while personally violence in any form is offensive and to be avoided, in the fight for self-determination, sometimes it is a necessary evil. That is not the way it should be, but the world is not a perfect place, and there are many people who only understand violence and bloodshed. When dealing with them, sometimes the only way to win self-determination and freedom is to fight back, and fight to win.
References
Rapoport, David C., ed. Inside Terrorist Organizations. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
