Is Terrorism Ever justified?

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

  1. kriminal99 Registered Senior Member


    Governments work on an only slightly less cruel principle. Lots of times people go without knowing about a law, and then get caught by the government doing it and punished anyways. They say something like "ignorance is no excuse" but htat makes no damn sense. The truth is there is simply no alternative- The only way for people to realize that other people will stop them from doing something like speeding is if they actually stop them and then say "don't do it again".

    Raising a child consists of punishing children for doing something they didn't know was "wrong" until you punished them. Death may seem like a harsh punishment, but is it the terrorist's fault or the governments that it is the only punishment for oppression of the terrorists that the terrorists can muster. Terrorists do not have the resources to destroy infrastructure or armies, striking the enemy where he is weak is the only option he has. The "innocent" people are not innocent really at all, they are funding the fight against the enemy and know it its just they don't think the enemy can do anythign to harm them for it. The only way to change that is for the enemy to prove them wrong. If a terrorist could slap someone on the wrist rather than blowing them up they might, but how can they do this to the citizens of a country like the US?

    The net result of this whole system idealy would never be that people are dying left and right. It would be that every disagreement carries the weight of death of yourself and loved ones behind it, and noone would ever attempt to squelch their opponent (causing him to resort to force) or resort to force yourself unless the other person left you absolutely no choice. If both people see it this way they would debate for eternity before refusing to come to an agreement about something that involved one person exerting force over the other. I think as a race in this scenario we would find admitting we are wrong and having similar beliefs is not nearly as hard as we thought.
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Hiroshima. Nagisaki? Dresden? Basra?

    Time and time again, countries have demonstrated that they are willing to kill women and children if it achieves their goals. America, Britain, France, Russia, etc.

    'We were aiming for a military target!' cries the military. Sadly, this is not always true. But even so, they are still willing to kill hundreds of children to achieve their goals. How is this any different from the terrorists?
    Well, actually, they do. I explained this in another thread. Terrorists target the opponent's 'centre of gravity'. In a democratic society, this is the public's willingness to continue the war. Make the public realize that the price they have to pay to continue the war is too high, and they will elect in a government which promotes peace and withdrawal.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    I've been thinking that imperialism is under-rated. Perhaps it's time to bring it back, and add a few new states throughout the middle east. Of course I find the bloodshed extremely distasteful... it basically repulses me, I don't think the western world and the muslim world can co-exist. I think it's us or them.

    In that case... I'd rather it be us, for obviously selfish reasons.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Wes, sometimes I long for Pax Romanum again, in the same sense. I think we might get along better with Muslims if we removed them from our lands and gave them autonomy in their own, however. Problem with imperialism is that when an empire falls, as opposed to a single country, everything seems to go to shit.
  8. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Yah I'm just talking smack really. I haven't put too much thought into the consequences of doing that. Probably a lot of ugly unintended consequences.
  9. J.J Registered Senior Member

    terrorism is justified cause I'm a terrorist!
  10. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Terrorism on USA is justifiable just as use of Nukes on Iraqi and Afgan civilians has been justified by American Taxpayers.
  11. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned


    As has been said before, it's all a matter of what side of the fence you are on, palestinian terrorists do not define themselves as such, they define themselves as freedom fighters. A much more honourable title, its only the target that defines the act as terrorism.

    Isn't a terrorist really someone who just can't afford an army, which could be seen as the under dog?

    If palestinians had the man power and money and land to form an army the'yd just go to war like the rest of the world that goes to war, but they can't, so they strike out in small groups any way they don't misunderstand me I am NOT justifying I am merely stating!

    So is terrorism justified, again I'm sure if you ask the alleged terrorist and the group they stand for, they'd say yes, the threatened force obviously no!

Share This Page