Talal Asad tailors a thesis based on his belief that terrorists use the same justification as just war thinkers when planning and reviewing their actions. He does this quite effectively, in part by arguing against the ideas proposed by Michael Walzer, and in doing so he creates an impressive platform of reasoning regarding why Walzer’s proposals do not hold up.
The authors do display some similarities when posing their arguments. In their relatively recent writings, “Five Questions About Terrorism” and On Suicide Bombing, they both reference the terror attack that shook the United States in September of 2001, as a sort of starting place for their discussions about terrorism. But their similarities more or less end here. Walzer goes on to explain his very specific ideas about the meaning of terrorism. Although, he opens his “Five Questions About Terrorism” with the statement, “This is not going to be a straightforward and entirely coherent argument,” because at the time of writing it, he was still “reeling” from the September 11 attacks (Walzer, “Five Questions About Terrorism,” 5). He describes terrorism …show more content…
In “The Moral Standing of States,” Walzer responds to the objections of four critics who developed similar arguments against his book, Just and Unjust Wars. They accuse him of promoting statist ideas and remaining unbothered by the lack of rights of the individual, but Walzer insists that his concern lies with the community which stands behind the state. His harsh and conservative stance on terrorism caused an uproar with those who oppose him, but in this writing he suggests that his book may have instead been “too permissive.” Throughout “The Moral Standing of States,” Walzer stands strongly by his proposals and clarifies some of his arguments, but even so, this passage most likely left his critics and their subsequent judgments unfazed because he fails to back down on any
The authors do display some similarities when posing their arguments. In their relatively recent writings, “Five Questions About Terrorism” and On Suicide Bombing, they both reference the terror attack that shook the United States in September of 2001, as a sort of starting place for their discussions about terrorism. But their similarities more or less end here. Walzer goes on to explain his very specific ideas about the meaning of terrorism. Although, he opens his “Five Questions About Terrorism” with the statement, “This is not going to be a straightforward and entirely coherent argument,” because at the time of writing it, he was still “reeling” from the September 11 attacks (Walzer, “Five Questions About Terrorism,” 5). He describes terrorism …show more content…
In “The Moral Standing of States,” Walzer responds to the objections of four critics who developed similar arguments against his book, Just and Unjust Wars. They accuse him of promoting statist ideas and remaining unbothered by the lack of rights of the individual, but Walzer insists that his concern lies with the community which stands behind the state. His harsh and conservative stance on terrorism caused an uproar with those who oppose him, but in this writing he suggests that his book may have instead been “too permissive.” Throughout “The Moral Standing of States,” Walzer stands strongly by his proposals and clarifies some of his arguments, but even so, this passage most likely left his critics and their subsequent judgments unfazed because he fails to back down on any