Is Terrorism Ever justified?

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Nazis called the Allied airstrikes terror attackes. Which they were of course. Most people seemed to have no trouble justifying them.

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

There are no rules which govern warfare. That is the fantasy of fools. So long as terrorism is effective, it is justified.

 

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.

 

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.

 

is terrorism something that can only be bad?

One merely has to ask their god.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

sorry, i was employing 'inference', in which i 'draw conclusions' from the 'text' that you were 'responding to'.

 

Translation: "Oh no, I made a jackass of myself. Save me ironic single quotes!"

 

see, you can't even interpret my fairly obvious point. you need to hire a translator.

 

All's Fair in love and War.

 

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