Is Terrorism Ever justified?

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

  1. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Guess you didn't read what I wrote, but never mind. I have other solutions.

    Take a hard look at russia. Copy them exactly.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes i read it. we are not talking about war

    and what is russia's plans for keeping her population trimmed?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. J.J Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    53
    LoL Funny

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Max

    I can see now that ye're just another of a long line of America-Haters vying for your few seconds in the spotlight.

    You are right! My Boy!
    Stop Posting, You Are Stupid!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    It didn't "make you think more and deeper" when BM basically said the same thing in a different flavor, and now you've decided he's an idiot. Well, either way I'm glad to be of assistance, or was that sarcasm?

    Yah.

    It's the key component when it comes to people you care about dying, or being hurt. Most will rationalize whatever they need to in order to justify whatever they need to do. We could say for instance, that all psychology, including whatever "non-emotional" reasons are fundamentally just rationalizations to support fundamental emotional motivation.

    Of course that's not necessarily true, but I'll accept the generalization.

    The same most likely generally applies. Of course it depends on the individuals. In either case, the philosophies of the people with the loss of course come into play. There are parents who want their children to be martyrs, and parents who understand that freedom from what they saw as tyranny comes at a very dear cost to some.

    That is fine for you to make such a judgement for yourself, but it's simply silly to expect others not to authetically think of them as such. They are right by their own standards, even though you may disagree. Such a judgement is fundamentally subjective (as are most). Certainly many are sheepish and latch onto the term "evil" because it supports their emotional disposition regarding the topic... and we're back to rationalization.

    Everyone has the right to do whatever they want and deal with the consequences.

    I don't think that question is really respective of the real situation. Consider the "basis" of the individuals involved, their cultural "heritage" so to speak. Hmm... lemme think of a better way to explain it, how about this: Say we're at opposite corners of a square room. In the center of the room is a ball. It's painted black on one side and white on the other. We can't get up to see the other side. We are both asked the question "what color is the ball?" and answer respectively. If I see a white ball, would I be wrong to call it white?

    There's also the consideration of motivation. Generally speaking the terrorists we speak of in Iraq, those setting of car bombs in public places, etc. They are actually terrorists. There's no disputing it in my mind. They're trying to motivate public opinion through random destruction. You have no idea when or where they'll strike unless you're "in the know". The US action in the region was well known, and the danger of staying in Bagdad obvious. The action was taken to topple the government directly through military action. There was no intention to "frighten the public into taking action". The intention was to destroy the government directly, not indirectly. That's not terrorism as I see it. Of course from the emotional perspective of someone who lost their baby to a US bomb, calling the US or Bush, or whoever was responsible for taking your child from you (which is arguably, YOU for not having left Bagdad when there was a well known imminent attack).. is quite understandable though IMO, incorrect.

    The fact is, you can hate who you want to hate for whatever reason suits you. You can try to kill them, or conspire against them all you like. *shrug* The only thing stopping you are the consequences (which might be someone killing YOU before you can kill them, or whatever).
     
  8. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Not what she is planning, what has already happened:

    http://countrystudies.us/russia/29.htm
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes, but that isn't healthy. you want your birth rate on the plus side not the minus.

    in my opinion a nation should have a positive birth rate
    with a means to "remove" people after they have had a chance to contribut to society.

    a negative birth rate means a declining population, and that isn't good
     
  10. J.J Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    53
    Hey wesmorris
    "It didn't "make you think more and deeper" when BM basically said the same thing in a different flavor, and now you've decided he's an idiot. Well, either way I'm glad to be of assistance, or was that sarcasm?"
    Don't worry I’m just joking with Max he is just funny.

    "It's the key component when it comes to people you care about dying, or being hurt. Most will rationalize whatever they need to in order to justify whatever they need to do. We could say for instance, that all psychology, including whatever "non-emotional" reasons is fundamentally just rationalizations to support fundamental emotional motivation."
    I don't know if you read my earlier posts. Do you believe Immoral Kant view of our morality and what is justified or Utilitarian's view on what is justified.
    Once again if you believe in Immural Kant's view then it basically means you have no emotional feelings what so ever. I believe we are all emotional animals, and then we should just ignore Immural Kant view on what is justified. (If you don't know what I am talking about please read the very first of my post, cause the space not enough to re post) Then only on view left and that is the view of the Utilitarian.

    I don't think that question is really respective of the real situation. Consider the "basis" of the individuals involved, their cultural "heritage" so to speak. Hmm... lemme think of a better way to explain it, how about this: Say we're at opposite corners of a square room. In the center of the room is a ball. It's painted black on one side and white on the other. We can't get up to see the other side. We are both asked the question "what color is the ball?" and answer respectively. If I see a white ball, would I be wrong to call it white?

    Great example! That was my thesis but if you didn't read my earlier post then you probably don't know. You are right and I think the same, as I post earlier that if you have the same view as Kant then you will say Wars are not justified, Terrorism is not justified, Killing is not justified those about all involves killing in some way, thus they are all Not Justified.
    But since I said earlier as well that majority of the people in our society is Utilitarian, because we are emotional animals, it can be bad to be emotional but at the same time it is a good thing. Nerveless since we are emotional animals we feels for each other as you point out earlier that "It's the key component when it comes to people you care about dying, or being hurt. Most will rationalize whatever they need to in order to justify whatever they need to do. I agree, but often we cannot look at the situation rationally thus we revenge. Even though it might not seem rationalize, but it is justified. I feel like you agree with me but just miss understand me or we have the same view but I didn't understand you.
    Sorry back to the ball example in that case you trying to say that both are justified? That that's what you meant then I agree that is why my thesis is as I posted earlier “If wars can be justified so can terrorism". So I’m saying they both justify one another. This might seem one sided view but really the question is
    “can terrorism ever be justified?” so it already assumes that it is not justified, cause the question is asking CAN TERRORISM EVER be justified not Is Terrorism Justified.

    Post back with what you think please.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    You said you wanted to cull your population?

    Killing of a few thousand men in war isn't going to help. The women are still there to be impregnated.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i don't know man, we need a workable solution for an overcrowded planet.
    used to be wars but that has changed with the advent of nuclear weapons.
    decreasing our birth rate below zero scares me.
    what other options do we have?
    step into a transporter and vaporize ourselves?
     
  13. J.J Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    53
    Hey wesmorris
    "It didn't "make you think more and deeper" when BM basically said the same thing in a different flavor, and now you've decided he's an idiot. Well, either way I'm glad to be of assistance, or was that sarcasm?"
    Don't worry I’m just joking with Max he is just funny.

    "It's the key component when it comes to people you care about dying, or being hurt. Most will rationalize whatever they need to in order to justify whatever they need to do. We could say for instance, that all psychology, including whatever "non-emotional" reasons is fundamentally just rationalizations to support fundamental emotional motivation."
    I don't know if you read my earlier posts. Do you believe Immoral Kant view of our morality and what is justified or Utilitarian's view on what is justified.
    Once again if you believe in Immural Kant's view then it basically means you have no emotional feelings what so ever. I believe we are all emotional animals, and then we should just ignore Immural Kant view on what is justified. (If you don't know what I am talking about please read the very first of my post, cause the space not enough to re post) Then only on view left and that is the view of the Utilitarian.

    I don't think that question is really respective of the real situation. Consider the "basis" of the individuals involved, their cultural "heritage" so to speak. Hmm... lemme think of a better way to explain it, how about this: Say we're at opposite corners of a square room. In the center of the room is a ball. It's painted black on one side and white on the other. We can't get up to see the other side. We are both asked the question "what color is the ball?" and answer respectively. If I see a white ball, would I be wrong to call it white?

    Great example! That was my thesis but if you didn't read my earlier post then you probably don't know. You are right and I think the same, as I post earlier that if you have the same view as Kant then you will say Wars are not justified, Terrorism is not justified, Killing is not justified those about all involves killing in some way, thus they are all Not Justified.
    But since I said earlier as well that majority of the people in our society is Utilitarian, because we are emotional animals, it can be bad to be emotional but at the same time it is a good thing. Nerveless since we are emotional animals we feels for each other as you point out earlier that "It's the key component when it comes to people you care about dying, or being hurt. Most will rationalize whatever they need to in order to justify whatever they need to do. I agree, but often we cannot look at the situation rationally thus we revenge. Even though it might not seem rationalize, but it is justified. I feel like you agree with me but just miss understand me or we have the same view but I didn't understand you.
    Sorry back to the ball example in that case you trying to say that both are justified? That that's what you meant then I agree that is why my thesis is as I posted earlier “If wars can be justified so can terrorism". So I’m saying they both justify one another. This might seem one sided view but really the question is
    “can terrorism ever be justified?” so it already assumes that it is not justified, cause the question is asking CAN TERRORISM EVER be justified not Is Terrorism Justified.

    Post back with what you think please.
     
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Sorry I forgot. If I don't get back with you by the end of saturday, please post another reminder.
     
  15. J.J Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    53
    this is a reminder from jj
    to wesmorris
    Hey wesmorris
    "It didn't "make you think more and deeper" when BM basically said the same thing in a different flavor, and now you've decided he's an idiot. Well, either way I'm glad to be of assistance, or was that sarcasm?"
    Don't worry I’m just joking with Max he is just funny.

    "It's the key component when it comes to people you care about dying, or being hurt. Most will rationalize whatever they need to in order to justify whatever they need to do. We could say for instance, that all psychology, including whatever "non-emotional" reasons is fundamentally just rationalizations to support fundamental emotional motivation."
    I don't know if you read my earlier posts. Do you believe Immoral Kant view of our morality and what is justified or Utilitarian's view on what is justified.
    Once again if you believe in Immural Kant's view then it basically means you have no emotional feelings what so ever. I believe we are all emotional animals, and then we should just ignore Immural Kant view on what is justified. (If you don't know what I am talking about please read the very first of my post, cause the space not enough to re post) Then only on view left and that is the view of the Utilitarian.

    I don't think that question is really respective of the real situation. Consider the "basis" of the individuals involved, their cultural "heritage" so to speak. Hmm... lemme think of a better way to explain it, how about this: Say we're at opposite corners of a square room. In the center of the room is a ball. It's painted black on one side and white on the other. We can't get up to see the other side. We are both asked the question "what color is the ball?" and answer respectively. If I see a white ball, would I be wrong to call it white?

    Great example! That was my thesis but if you didn't read my earlier post then you probably don't know. You are right and I think the same, as I post earlier that if you have the same view as Kant then you will say Wars are not justified, Terrorism is not justified, Killing is not justified those about all involves killing in some way, thus they are all Not Justified.
    But since I said earlier as well that majority of the people in our society is Utilitarian, because we are emotional animals, it can be bad to be emotional but at the same time it is a good thing. Nerveless since we are emotional animals we feels for each other as you point out earlier that "It's the key component when it comes to people you care about dying, or being hurt. Most will rationalize whatever they need to in order to justify whatever they need to do. I agree, but often we cannot look at the situation rationally thus we revenge. Even though it might not seem rationalize, but it is justified. I feel like you agree with me but just miss understand me or we have the same view but I didn't understand you.
    Sorry back to the ball example in that case you trying to say that both are justified? That that's what you meant then I agree that is why my thesis is as I posted earlier “If wars can be justified so can terrorism". So I’m saying they both justify one another. This might seem one sided view but really the question is
    “can terrorism ever be justified?” so it already assumes that it is not justified, cause the question is asking CAN TERRORISM EVER be justified not Is Terrorism Justified.

    Post back with what you think please.
     
  16. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    TERRORISM IS NEVER JUSTIFIED

    Its the act of the evil masquerading as 'god'!

    It is the act of cowards. A brave race would come forward and fight face to face --- not with the civilians but with armies --- not hiding and hurling bombs at innocents! And it will take the victory or defeat with grace!

    Nothing would ever, ever justify the killing of innocent citizens --- not even a genuinne freedom struggle, or a genuine fight against forces of suppression --- any holy book that justifies this cannot be from the god.

    If killing of innocent people is justified when fighting forces of suppression then I think it would be justifiable for the rest of the world to kill all Muslims in the world.
     
  17. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    At this point, I don't remember either.

    I don't study philosophy really... i have my own view on morality. I'm a relativist pretty much. What is justified is what the individual justifies. There is no other measure.

    Well that just seems stupid, so no I don't believe in that.

    Are you sure? Maybe you're right. I don't have time at the moment to read anything. I'm sacrificing sleep as it is.

    Thanks. I ripped it off from river-wind in an unrelated topic from a year or two ago. Glad it popped back into mind now that I found a use for it.

    I contend there is no such thing as justification outside the individual. Consensus is an illusion in this context at least.

    I dunno yet. Maybe they're similar.

    Well for that matter, anything can be justified. Whether it is from MY perspective is another question all together.

    I don't see it that way. Justification is a mental phenomenon wherein people feel their actions are reasonable given their circumstances. The cases of war and terrorism are related but justified circumstanially don't rely on one another as you say. Probably not particularly relevant. I think I've over-segmented your post perhaps. Perhaps you can re-iterate your point if you're making one I haven't addressed.

    I disagree in that I think the implication is only that "terrorism is bad" which the illusion of consensus would likely support. I agree with it for instance. It's simply assuming you don't want to be terrorized, which is apparently statistically reasonable.

    Yah, it's an emotional play to some extent I'll grant you... but a pretty fair one from my perspective as I explained. I don't want to be terrorized, so I'm down with the implicit assumption.

    Sorry it took me so long and pardon if it was lame.

    I'll leave you with this:

    What is justifiable is context dependent. Context = circumstance. At this poitn in my life, I could not personally justify myself undertaking an act of terrorism. I cannot say with certainty that such a circumstance could not arise.
     
  18. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,710
    Terrorism is justified in case U dont have nukes and money and your country has been taken over by banna dictatorship. As a patriot it becomes ones moral obligatory duty to destroy the enemy but only till a point where your country becomes safe from the attitudinal threat.
     
  19. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    That makes most of Islamic terrorism worldwide unjustifiable!
     
  20. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Even then terrorism is not justfied. Look at the Tibetans.....they have survived so gracefully and are adding positively to the world. One day they will win back their freedom. And they have the respect and support of the entire world.

    I think the communist rebels/ and all such militants are doing a great disservice to the world.
     
  21. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,710
    U r comparing apples with oranges.

    Tibet is a part of china, if they want to fight for something then that should be for every chinese person, dont be selfish, give up your religion, become a Rationalist like me.

    Buddha1 please create a seperate thread for this topic, U have a bad habbit of hijacking others threads for your purpose, hijacking is terrorism.
     
  22. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Anyone can forcibly occupy someone's territory and then after a couple of decades it will become a part of it!
     
  23. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    If Tibet is a part of China, would you say that Iraq is a part of America?
     

Share This Page