Can terrorism be justified?

Let's get a good debate going!


Can terrorism be justified?

 

Not the extremism that Militant groups practice, I can totally see why they would be pissed as hell, and its hard to say wether America would be any better if they had the same past as many countries wracked with terrorism.

 

No, but I think my opinion is that we should not give into terrorism with fear. If we show them we fear them, then we give them power. They cannot justify terrorism, and we cannot show them that what they do will change how we live our lives.

 

Hell no

 

Yes. Will provide more details to why when I'm home.

 

theres not exactly the best goverments there in the region, and awhile ago (bush i think) the U.S was backing certain bad goverments because they wanted cheap oil and stuff.

 

not at all, I'm said that it wasn't justified at all, however I said I could understand the underlying reasons.

 

No terrorism can not be justified. I think that we may be confused. The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. That is the definition of terrorism. You want to change stuff in politics be my guessed, have a friken civil war for all I care. But in terrorism they use fear as power.

 

I don't think the violent means of terrorism can be justified per se, but what we dismiss as "terrorism" definitely has root causes. For example, constant American intevention in the Middle East since 1948 (Israel) has spawned a good deal of anti-West sentiment, and with the degree of anti-American sentiment that's built up over the years, it's not difficult to imagine why terrorists have the goals they do.

 

Terrorism is defined as the use of violence of intimidation for political means.

Would Gen. Sherman be considered a terrorist for his strategy during the Civil War? He commonly used scorched earth tactics in the South. Would any war be considered terrorism, considering it's all geopolitical?

What about U.S usage of drones, which often inflict civilian death. Is this not used in pursuit of political aims?

Terrorism can be commonly used against a larger occupying force. Take this scenario for example, what if you woke up tomorrow and China has invaded the US, and had taken out most of our defenses. Would you not fight to protect your family/community? Would you not plant hidden bombs to cause damage? What about blowing yourself up to potentially save your family?

 

Yes.
Terrorism as practiced by the Jihadists, which is based on religion is never justifiable, but their are situations when it is necessary.
Case in point: The Russian Revolution.
Before WWII and the rise of Communism in Russia, Russia was ruled by an elite ruling class, which had access to all the resources and didn't share with the peasants. Much like the French, before their revolution. It became common for people to murder members of the ruling class in the streets, and burn their mansions and storehouses. In fact, Mark Twain once said, referring to the Russian Revolution, "If dynamite is the only way by which such a system can be removed, then thank God for dynamite."

 

Terrorism doesn't in all cases use fear as power, terrorism can also be to draw attention to something. Nelson Mandela and his group of activists, Umkhonto we Sizwe, killed hundreds of Government officials and civilians in South Africa in the 60's. They drew world attention to the South African apartheid, which ultimately ended in it being abolished and Nelson Mandela becoming president.

Still don't think terrorism can be justified?

What about during WWII in europe, (I'll use Denmark as an example but I am sure it happened in all occupied countries), when Denmark got occupied people formed terrorist groups. They would sabotage german supply routes, bridges, railways etc. Wouldn't terrorism be justified then?

 

Of course it can be justified. As long as they have a motive, that's their justification. As much as we many not like it, they have different views and opinions and just have really extreme ways in expressing it and getting their message out there.

 

You are right not all to gain power but to somehow show a political/religious view or stand using fear and shock. In the example they used fear and shock to gain attention. While stopping South African apartheid is good at the same time though. Then again it makes me think that if those government leaders were enforcing South African apartheid this may have been an act of civil disobedience to help make something fair. Killings the civilians how ever was unneeded I feel, that is strictly moral reasons only though.

Is this a form of terrorism? It was used to help win battles and gain an advantage in war. This did how ever kill innocent humans but that will always sadly be a side effect of war. Let me take modern day ISIS for example. When I think terrorism I think them. They kill hundreds of innocent people in brutal way to overall make a true Islamic state so they can gain both religious and political power.

EDIT: Reworded a sentence to be more clear.

 

Ever heard of Ghandi?
Ghandi never killed anyone, but freed India from Britain, the most powerful country in the world at the time, faster than France freed France from itself. Peaceful protest should always be attempted before war.

It's not terrorism to destroy enemy military assets, it's war.

There's a difference between a reason for doing something and a justification for it. I could go murder someone and say that my motive is that I didn't like them, but that's a reason, not a justification. There is no justification for murdering an innocent person. Justification is defined as "The action of showing something to be right or reasonable.", according to Google. Killing innocent civilians is neither right nor reasonable, and therefore cannot be justified.

Maybe to kill the Chinese soldiers, but not Chinese civilians at their jobs in an office tower harming nobody.

Exactly. Being Islamophobic and not letting Muslim refugees into the country is exactly what ISIS wants us to do. They want to turn Muslims against "the West", and that's exactly whats happening. All that distrusting Muslims does is make them want to side with ISIS, who will respect their faith and customs, and respect them as a person.

 

Lt. Commander Data: I have been reviewing the history of armed rebellion. And it appears that terrorism is an effective way to promote political change.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Yes, it can be. But I have never subscribed to the theory that political power flows from the barrel of a gun.


Finn: This is a war for independence, and I am no better or different than your own George Washington.
Dr. Crusher: Washington was a military general, not a terrorist.
Finn: The difference between generals and terrorists is only the difference between winners and losers. If you win you are called a general. If you lose...
Dr. Crusher: "You are killing innocent people!"

Finn: How much innocent blood has been spilled for the cause of freedom in the history of your Federation, Doctor? How many good and noble societies have bombed civilians in war? Wiped out whole cities. And now that you enjoy the comfort that has come from their battles, their killing, you frown on my immorality? I am willing to die for my freedom. And, in the finest tradition of your own great civilization, I'm willing to kill for it, too.

I remembered these quotes from Star Trek: The Next Generation "The High Ground". I quote Star Trek probably too often in political/philosophical debates. I think that this particular Star Trek episode gave me a better understanding of the different sides there are in this debate and how both of them are reasonable stances, (especially when often these situations are so complex) so I found quotes from it worthy of sharing.

 

Exactly. Depends on the point of view. Not tolerated in Western society but a commandment in the very scripts of theirs (when it comes to Islamic terrorism). Dot I have a question for you, though. Do you think there can be levels of how just an action is? If so, do you think terror would fall low or high on the scale? Finally, do you think somewhere set in stone there is an absolute for what is either considered just or unjust, and furthermore good and bad? These questions are very interesting to me and they have had me stumped for a while. This seems like a good place to bring them up

 

Times change, you can't just go around killing people for religion anymore.
A thousand-year old book is not justification for terrorism.
This is just another reason to stop basing our lives on dusty old books.

 

Well I agree, but that's besides the point. It's called point of view and billions would disagree with you.

 

Can you show me where?