Is Terrorism Ever justified?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by unlimited, Sep 20, 2005.

  1. unlimited Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    is terrorism something that can only be bad? let me remind you that terrorism has been around since civilization began, many acts of terrorism are looked well upon but it is not realized.

    your thoughts?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    The problem is you seem to be asking if everyone on Earth will agree that terrorism is "good" or "bad" ....without any consideration that it might be different to different people. I.e., do you think that the person who commits terrorism thinks it's a "bad" thing???

    The other problem is simply defining terrorism ....what the hell is it?

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,978
    I think the fact that terrorism is in reality committed against civilians would, for me personally anyway, mean that it could never be justified. It is a premeditated act designed to harm or kill civilians to further a political cause and that should never be justified or seen as not being 'bad' by its very nature.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    The Nazis called the Allied airstrikes terror attackes. Which they were of course. Most people seemed to have no trouble justifying them.
     
  8. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, that's not bad, Bells, but what about "civilians" who are working in factories making weapon parts or parts of tanks or explosives? Are they "civilians"?

    Also, how is murder different to terrorism?

    Also, if a group can organize massive protests and change the policies of a nation, are they "civilians" or are they the "opposition forces"?

    If a woman helps to feed her husband who is an "member of the opposition", is she an innocent civilian? If the terrorists kill her, then her husband would have a harder time to fight, right? ...sorta' like taking away part of his "weaponry", huh?

    Baron Max
     
  9. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    HI........is causing people to be terrified. to live in a state of terror and angst, and to blow them up killing them, and maiming them for life, including children and babies---is that/can that be justified?

    NO!
     
  10. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter?

    The Taliban were called the Mujahadeen 'freedom fighters' when the US wanted them to oust Russia from Afganistan. And isn't it also remarkable how a freedom fighter and friend of the west changes into a dictator as soon as he strays from the agreed path eg you give us oil/gas/diamonds we give you cash and your own personal army.

    Terrorism may be carried out by states as well as dictators and radicalised splinter groups but the victims are ALWAYS innocent civilians going about their daily business.

    Terrorists: mad, bad and dangerous to know.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,978
    Baron, there is a difference between a civilian and someone being part of the armed forces (eg army, air force, etc). So you think that a group of individuals (attempting for further their own cause and to bring attention to their cause) are justified in attacking a factory filled with civilians that manufactures some parts for weapons or tanks?

    What about civilians who do not work for the armed forces. How about the familes of armed forces personnel. Do you think they aren't civilians?

    That is something that does need to be addressed. Terrorist acts which result in the deaths of innocent civilians can be construed as acts of murder and sometimes are (eg in Bali for example when their High Court ruled that their new anti-terrorism laws did not apply to the bali bombers). How would you view McVeigh for example? As a mass murderer or as a terrorist? In the past he would have been seen as a murderer, but it seems that since 9/11, such acts are construed as acts of terrorism. And they are. He killed innocent civilians and some of those killed were children left in the creche in the building because he was paranoid that the Government would take away his rights to arms. You don't view his actions as an act of terrorism? I'd call it a murderous act of terrorism.

    If the group organised to harm civilians in attempting to change the policies of a nation, then that group would be classified as terrorists and their act in harming those civilians in attempting to change the policies of said nation would be deemed as an act of terrorism. A protest is hardly the same as a bombing killing innocent people Baron and you know it.

    Is she a member of a Government armed forces? Just because her husband might be a soldier or a member of the "opposition", it does not make her one as well. Your argument is akin to saying that if the husband liked to play with his one year old child as a form of relaxation and if the terrorist killed that child that he'd have no way to unwind or relax, making it harder for hubby to fight that the child might not be classified as an innocent civilian.

    Honestly Baron, I know you like to play the devil's advocate but surely you do know the difference between a civilian and a non-civilian..
     
  12. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    There are no rules which govern warfare. That is the fantasy of fools. So long as terrorism is effective, it is justified.
     
  13. dr. cello Thrilling Conversationalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    197
    history, as they say, is written by the winners. terrorism has taken on a rather mccarthyan aspect in modern america. antipatriots are now labeled 'terrorists', and by and large this pleases people because they are too stupid to recognise such mindless hatemongering. terrorism is, quite simply, psychological warfare, and there are many situations by most standards that it can be justified.
     
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    terrorism is a GREAT tool for small numbers to gain political weight that they could not otherwise gain. obviously it's good for the people who use it, or they wouldn't. so shit yeah it's justified to the people who use it. is it "wrong"? sure, every time... but it's a wrong conceived to right a wrong, which justifies it all day long to those who feel wronged or identify with the cause.

    oh, and terrism is quite easily defined. it's when people decide to attempt to create an atmosphere of extreme fear in the populous related to the government that offended the party who now feels justified to create the fear. if you can't win against their military for instance, but you can smash the support of the populous.. it undermines the power and resolve of the people in charge. it's much more effective than trying to tackle their military head on.

    obviously anyone who resorts to terrorism feels they've been pushed past the limits of "right and wrong" or they just don't think of right and wrong as I might. it's "right" for instance, to kill infidels - so who gives a shit if they're 'civilians'? if you're a hard-line islamist, there are no innocents outside of islam.
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    is terrorism something that can only be bad?

    One merely has to ask their god.
     
  16. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    Except that if this little truism were really true there would be no more human civilization, all of it having been blown up by nuclear weapons sometime between their invention more than 50 years ago and their proliferation and the innumerable conflicts between then and now. If the goal of war was always to fight as dirty as possible with as little regard to the fate of your enemy as possible, then we would all be living on a field of black glass and nuclear fallout. Please stop trying to sound intelligent about war, it disgusts me. Certainly if war is what gets you off then indulge vicariously in it all you like, clearly you aren’t man enough to fight it yourself or you would be there yourself. But leave intelligence to the people who are willing to think before they speak.
     
  17. dr. cello Thrilling Conversationalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    197
    moose: these 'rules' are not in place because of honour and glory, but because of the desire for self-preservation. war is not a place for fighting honourably. it's a place of fighting effectively. nobody tries to make it 'fair'. they try to keep from being glassed over. please stop being pretentious, kthxbye.
     
  18. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    What did either I or Prince James say about honor or glory? He says there are no rules, I say its patently obvious that there are.
     
  19. dr. cello Thrilling Conversationalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    197
    sorry, i was employing 'inference', in which i 'draw conclusions' from the 'text' that you were 'responding to'.
     
  20. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,641
    Translation: "Oh no, I made a jackass of myself. Save me ironic single quotes!"
     
  21. dr. cello Thrilling Conversationalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    197
    see, you can't even interpret my fairly obvious point. you need to hire a translator.
     
  22. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,175
    All's Fair in love and War.
     
  23. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    What? The uniform? What if they take it off and walk amongst the "civilians", do they then automatically become civilians? No, I don't know the difference between "soldiers" and civilians ...and we know that from experience!

    Sure ...if those weapons and tanks are used against them! Are you saying that soldiers should wait until the equipment is ready and on the battlefield before attacking??? If the enemy has no weapons, it's pretty damned difficult for them to fight.

    In Germany during World War II, the allies bombed the German oil refineries and in several instances almost stopped Hitler's advancing tanks. The gas and diesel was vital to Hitler's war efforts, so...doesn't that make refiinery workers ALSO vital to Hitler's war efforts????? ....so were they civilians??

    Many, many protests have led directly to "terrorist" actions! ...or are you suggesting that we wait until the bombs have exploded before we make any move to do anything?

    In Vietnam, many of the families were actively supportiing/helping the soldeirs in their fighting. So just being a "civilian" is not quite enough for me to make that judgement.

    Well, no, I don't understand. Could you provide a good working definition for the differences? I still think that the uniform is about the only difference ...ask any Vietnam vet or coalition troops in Iraq about it.

    I'm still not sure about McViegh ....I usually don't make snap judgements and it's only been a short time since his act, so I'm reserving judgement!

    Baron Max
     

Share This Page