Is Terrorism Ever justified?

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

  1. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    as wit most subjects that involve real people, it is easy to get lost in intellectualism and objectivity, and sway ideas about rlativism...you know, one person's evil is aothe man's good and all that ....stuff
    but i recommend...reallly---you read this . tis article is from pople who actuallywere right there trying help in the aftermath of the horror of 7/7.
    it is grim reading but important

    http://www.observer.co.uk
    when there click on 'news' and look for title: 'Blue Watch relive the bomb hell inside carriage 346A'
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    23,053
    Hmm, I disagree. Let's look at your statement a bit differently:

    "as wit most subjects that involve real people, it is easy to get lost in sensationalism and emotionalism, and sway ideas about rlativism...

    One can't be rational/reasonable/objective when personally confronted by their own emotions. The ONLY way to objectively debate/view a subject is to be emotionally distant from the issues.

    Terrorism is blowing up someone else's property and/or killing people who are unaware of their own danger in order to further your own cause. I actually don't see it as much different then plain old murder ...the only thing that's different is "the cause", but don't most murderers actually have a "cause"? ...if nothing more than the "cause" to kill his victim?

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    so your argument is that cause terrorism is murder thart makes it alright??
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    23,053
    Duendy, where, oh, where did I say or even imply that??????

    Baron Max
     
  8. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    so you mean ...if the cause is good enough it is justified? what you mean then?
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Go back and read thru the thread ...perhaps you'll then understand the "thread" of the conversations.

    Baron Max
     
  10. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    hahhh ...now do you think, in a million YEARS, i would take your advice?
     
  11. kriminal99 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    Talking/terrorism: Avoidance of violence and aggression is what is supposed to motivate people to come to an agreement rather than trying to squelch the other person's opinion through force. I am saying that governments who preach against terrorism are often hypocritical because they force people to behave against their views and then turn around and claim that any force by people to resist this or do what they want to do is "wrong" or "evil".

    The human sense of morality is an animalistic sense of power. If you have an opinion that a group of people does not share, and you try to convince those people that you are right, typically they will simply ignore how right you are or are not and ignore your opinion because you have no power over them such that you could force them to admit when they are wrong (which they don't want to do) If you all don't have to interact its not a problem. If they are in a position of power over you however (police, government, foreign government etc) and you are arguing over how they use that power over you, then it is a different story.

    There is only one way that an argument can be truly resolved in this situation. That is when at least one person admits they are wrong. If one side (typically the one who seems to have the most power) simply ignores the other person's opinion (usually claiming "they tried" but not having convinced the other person) then their argument basically boils down to "I have more power than you, so I will do whatever I want". And the only counter to that argument is to demonstrate that they do not have more power than you by any means necessary. And when they have many more resources than you, your options are limited to terrorism.
     
  12. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, yes. But does that "justify" terrorism? Does that "justify" the suicide bombings of your own nation's people? Does that "justify" killing non-combatant women and children? Does that "justify" blowing up a hospital or a school full of non-combatants?

    And lest anyone forget, I'm still trying to figure out what it means when we say, "justify"? Does that mean that everyone on Earth agrees? Or a majority agrees? Who or how many must agree that it's "justified" for it to be called "justified"? Or is it just a fuckin' word that we use?

    Baron Max
     
  13. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    "Desperate times call for desperate measures".

    Seeing as how you're a staunch Bush supporter, and seeing all the crappy laws that pass such as the Patriot Act, wanting Martial Law, or vetoing anti-torture laws, you should be able to easily understand, and agree with, the reasons behind "terrorism" and the saying of "desperate times call for desperate measures". Or is that saying morally wrong and we should hold steadfast our laws and values, which would mean the acts done by our side listed above are wrong and those in charge should be held accountable as we want the "terrorists" to be?

    - N
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Neildo, let's not get sidetracked on this issue. This is not about "right or wrong", it's about acts of terrorism being "justified". Justified is the key word; what does it mean? And who determines it?

    If a serial rapist feels the strong, uncontrollable urges in his body to rape and murder a woman AND he feels that he can "justify" it as lessening those strong, uncontrollable urges, are his actions then "justified"? ...even if the rest of his don't agree?

    There must be some agreed upon conditions for us to say that something is "justified" ....if so, what are those conditions? And again, are those conditions agreed to by everyone?

    Baron Max
     
  15. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Justification is the same as right and wrong. It all depends on whom you're asking.

    Ah, morals.

    - N
     
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Yeah, and so we've come full circle without ever answering the original question! So terrorism is justified AND not justified at the very same time.

    So, by similar logic, every act that man can do is both justified AND not justified. Murdering little kids is BOTH justified and not justified.

    So why do we have such a term as "justified"? Is it just a convienent term for the VERY small group of people? ....like most probably ONE person?!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  17. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Yep. By saying something is justified, even if it's just in the eyes of one person or a small group, it allows the slight chance that others will share the same outlook due to peer pressure all because if the majority is right, it must mean it's right.

    It's kinda like how rumors start. It starts small then continues to grow until it's widely-accepted. truth. I can say [blank] is totally justified! There's no proof of it being justified or anything, but by my saying it, people might believe it. It's a means of controlling the sheeple.

    This is why I say there's no such thing as morals. They change all the time. What was once good can now be bad. What was once bad can now be good. It all depends on who you ask and during what time frame the brainwashed public gained their beliefs and from whom.

    - N
     
  18. c20H25N3o Shiny Heart of a Shiny Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,017
    Doesn't that make you a very 'hard to trust' person? Fickle even?
    If not, please explain why?

    Thanks

    c20
     
  19. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Actually, I should have said there's not really such a thing as universal morals other than the golden rule. It doesn't matter how I live my life if it doesn't interfere with anyone else against their will.

    But hey, that could make me a hard to trust person if I say blanket statements like that and I don't really mind if one thinks I am. Once one gets to know me and my morals (which can be very different to someone else), they can be just fine with it. If someone disagrees with something I believe in, just like how everyone disagrees with almost any subject like say, "immoral" abortion (which I'm all for so long as the baby isn't fully developed, for example), they can decide to still like me or not. I could care less if not.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    My main point, however, is that morals change all the time. Take having sex with the same sex, whether homo or bisexual. It used to be fine with the Greeks and Romans back in the days, then became bad by the church. Now-a-days it used to be a secretive "in the closet" kinda thing but now more people are open to it. That's one example of how there's no such thing as morals but rather just majority public opinion. That's all morals are, really. It's not that something actually is good or bad, it all depends on whom you ask and when. There's very few actual universal morals. Heck, even murder isn't a universal one because self-defense or waging war on other countries happens all the time.

    - N
     
  20. GeniusNProgress Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Terrorism is in itself the act of terror in order to make change, coerce or prove postions. The idea of taking away human lives in order to prove a point that was not able to be proven through all other means does not justify anything. The taking of an innocent life is never justified. No man on this earth has the authority to take someones natural rights away in order to prove strength or control to another. If the terrorist say, have a problem with the president Bush...killing 3000 people in a couple buildings doesn't justify itself because the act of terror is not being brought upon the persons at fault in the first place. It's not a "last resort", it should not even be an option in the human mind, but it is because we're all selfish pricks and put the well being of a few over the well being of an entire race. War and terrorism are being confused as interchangable. If a group of "terrorist" attack a military base and not a starbucks then that would be seen as an act of war. Terrorism is used because of the main fact that the terror is being brought upon people not involved, which makes the act horrible in itself. Now people will say "well we kill prisoners". Those "prisoners" lost their natural rights when they decided to take someone elses away. Therefore they are not innocent civilians, they are murderous criminals and do not have the same rights as we have. War and Terrorism are (once again)not the same. There are guidelines to war and there are those guidelines to protect those who can not protect themselves. Geneva Convention spells that out for alot of you. People need to understand that enemies in war are more than likely entire governments or armies and not individual people not involved.
    Wars are fought between nations and states, armies against armies. Other than that it's not an actual war. The idea that there is no distinction between military personel and civilians other than their uniforms is absurd. Persons in the military give their consent to put themselves before their country. They are trained for combat situations and are part of one body who's sole purpose is to uphold the rights of all their fellow countrymen. If the people in this world had no regard for those who are different and have differing views on life than there would be alot of dead people. A war is a fight with a cause and a desired end result. Casualties of war are justified when the purpose of war is understood. If the other side poses a threat to the lives of the other side than war is justified as means of self defense and preservation. Terrorist attack not because their lives are at risk, but because other incentives outweigh the significance of the human life. When one person puts their importance and significance above another's and act out on taking the weakers life than terrorism will occur.
    Every human being is born with a sense of right and wrong. Of course without a doubt their environment shapes and specifies those rights and wrongs but the basic ideas are instilled in everyone, part of the human instinct and thought process. Even sociopaths have an idea of right and wrong. We all naturally try to stay alive, (not including those who want or have committed suicide). We know that if something threatens our life than that is bad. And that our life therefore is good. So we can conclude that killing is bad because we ourselves would not want to die and do all in our power to prevent that. You can take someones money but if our money were to be taken our brain would tell us and make us feel that that is a bad thing. Morals do not change. Society bends our views on what is right and wrong so that they can justify doing things they shouldn't, and that's the bottom line. People don't want to be guilt ridden so it's alot easier to make what they are doing wrong acceptable. That way they can sleep at night. But back to the bottom line. Is terrorism ever justified? No. Is war ever justified? Yes. But not all. It's all about immediate threats and what is actually being threatened. And the response should vary among those. Many terrorist are so close-minded and determined that there is no other right way than theirs and therefore diplomacy is out of the question. If men were not so stubborn than alot of more people would still be alive. There has to be a universal respect for the human life. One man may want power of the world but killing someone who stands in the way of that power does not make it justified because of the fact it makes his mission for power somewhat easier.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2005
  21. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Sorry, but there's no such thing as an innocent person. Nor is there a difference between war and terrorism. To argue otherwise is merely symantics.

    - N
     
  22. GeniusNProgress Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    The difference is affiliation and involvement. Killing a child in a village over the fact that two sides are too moronic to solve their problems between themselves doesn't make that childs death acceptable. The differences are clear as day, but ignorance and denial prevails over an acceptance of truth.
     
  23. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    As much as it might pain me, I have to agree with that statement. But I still don't like it! I have this strong idea/principle about "innocence" that I just can't shake off ....guess I'm just too fuckin' old!

    Now I have to disagree with that statement. A "war" is fought between two or more NATIONS and is a governmental declaration of "war". Terrorism is simply a few people who aren't satisfied with something that someone or some government does ....and start killing and bombing things and people (sometimes seemingly at random!).

    In the sense of actual "combat" or "fighting", I might agree (i.e., combat is fightiing and killing people) ...but that's not the way your statement was made or implied.

    Baron Max
     

Share This Page