Is Terrorism Ever justified?
- Thread starter unlimited
- Start date
Hey Guys Please Hear Me Out and send me your opinions
Well... I am doing an essay on the topic Can terrorism ever be justified.
My Own Opinion is Terrorism can be justified.
I have some ideas but I just don't know how to put them together, so please hear me out and give advises.
My thesis is if War can be justified so cans terrorism.
There is this theory call "Just War" which is a theory to justify wars.
Here it is
1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted be fore use of forces is justified.
2. A war must be waged by a legitimate authority.
3. A just war can only be fought to redress a genuine wrong suffered. Self-defense is always considered a just cause.
4 A war can be just only if there is reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injuries incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5. The ultimate goal must be to establish peace. The peace established post-war must be preferable to any peace that would have prevailed had the war not happened.
6. The violence in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States cannot justly use unnecessary force.
7. Weapons used must discriminate between civilians and combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets, and all efforts must be taken to avoid their being harmed.
From an article called standards of a 'just war' are not met this time by Tom Harpur stays that the war in Iraq is not a just war.
there is also two ways to look at this question.
If you are a utilitarian and believe in utilitarianism then you will agree that wars can be justified when follow the theory of a just war. Utilitarianism is the calculation of pleasure and pain. They accept the theory of sacrifice one to bring the pleasure of many.
Another view is from Immanuel Kant. He is the total opposite.
I will use an example to show Immanuel Kant's theory and Utilitarian's theory
The example is: if you and 10 other people from different countries caught by terrorists and they give you the authority to determine others life what will you do? There are two choices the first one is in order to let the 10 people go you have to choose one person from that group of people to be killed. what will you do? If you do not choose all of them will get killed.
I would choose to kill the one person in order to save the other nine.
Utilitarian will do the same, they think you choice is justified because more people is alive than dead.
but Immanuel Kant will not choose at all, even though he will then kill everyone but he believes that to kill is wrong thus he will not be justified under any circumstances if he chooses to kill that one person.
I talked to my philosophy teacher, but he did not really explain anything thing but instead keep on asking me what would I do if he punches me. I said I won’t punch you back because you are my teacher. But he keeps on asking that what I would do if he keeps on punching me. I said I would punch you back in order to stop you from punching me. He then explained the just war theory and told me that self defense is justified. Which is funny because by saying that he already admits that Immanuel Kant’s theory will not exist in our society...?
Since we are arguing with in the theory of utilitarianism then terrorism is justified because war can be.
Wars involves killing and dieing. In Immanuel Kant's view war will never be justified because killing is morally wrong. n Utilitarian's view killing is wrong but it is justified when you are self defending
Another thing is this problem about understanding justified's meaning.
Well a clear example will be who you think is the good guy between American troops and the terrorists they are fighting with.
I think the word justified really means that can terrorism and what they do to be seemed right?
That is when my thesis coming in place. Which basically means that if the unjustifiable war can be justified then why can’t terrorism?
Many people don't know about the terrorists under the media. We see the video tape of how many people a suicide bomber have killed. But we never see the tape of how many Iraq people have been killed by American troops or the method they use to make a terrorist come out from its hiding spot which is throwing a chemical which will burn right into your bones when the powder land on you, isn't that crucial?
Another thought is about revolution. don't we all have to right to revolute when our government is not doing a good job. I believe we should. So if the PLQ want to be independent, they are justified for what they have done.
One more thought that is in my mind is: are there two kinds of terrorists?
One is the freedom fighter which is like George Washington the other one is like KKK which I believe is fighting to take away the equality of human beings.
I think I didn't make that much sense but just try to understand what I said and maybe give your opinions or advises
Thankx
Well... I am doing an essay on the topic Can terrorism ever be justified.
My Own Opinion is Terrorism can be justified.
I have some ideas but I just don't know how to put them together, so please hear me out and give advises.
My thesis is if War can be justified so cans terrorism.
There is this theory call "Just War" which is a theory to justify wars.
Here it is
1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted be fore use of forces is justified.
2. A war must be waged by a legitimate authority.
3. A just war can only be fought to redress a genuine wrong suffered. Self-defense is always considered a just cause.
4 A war can be just only if there is reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injuries incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
5. The ultimate goal must be to establish peace. The peace established post-war must be preferable to any peace that would have prevailed had the war not happened.
6. The violence in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States cannot justly use unnecessary force.
7. Weapons used must discriminate between civilians and combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets, and all efforts must be taken to avoid their being harmed.
From an article called standards of a 'just war' are not met this time by Tom Harpur stays that the war in Iraq is not a just war.
there is also two ways to look at this question.
If you are a utilitarian and believe in utilitarianism then you will agree that wars can be justified when follow the theory of a just war. Utilitarianism is the calculation of pleasure and pain. They accept the theory of sacrifice one to bring the pleasure of many.
Another view is from Immanuel Kant. He is the total opposite.
I will use an example to show Immanuel Kant's theory and Utilitarian's theory
The example is: if you and 10 other people from different countries caught by terrorists and they give you the authority to determine others life what will you do? There are two choices the first one is in order to let the 10 people go you have to choose one person from that group of people to be killed. what will you do? If you do not choose all of them will get killed.
I would choose to kill the one person in order to save the other nine.
Utilitarian will do the same, they think you choice is justified because more people is alive than dead.
but Immanuel Kant will not choose at all, even though he will then kill everyone but he believes that to kill is wrong thus he will not be justified under any circumstances if he chooses to kill that one person.
I talked to my philosophy teacher, but he did not really explain anything thing but instead keep on asking me what would I do if he punches me. I said I won’t punch you back because you are my teacher. But he keeps on asking that what I would do if he keeps on punching me. I said I would punch you back in order to stop you from punching me. He then explained the just war theory and told me that self defense is justified. Which is funny because by saying that he already admits that Immanuel Kant’s theory will not exist in our society...?
Since we are arguing with in the theory of utilitarianism then terrorism is justified because war can be.
Wars involves killing and dieing. In Immanuel Kant's view war will never be justified because killing is morally wrong. n Utilitarian's view killing is wrong but it is justified when you are self defending
Another thing is this problem about understanding justified's meaning.
Well a clear example will be who you think is the good guy between American troops and the terrorists they are fighting with.
I think the word justified really means that can terrorism and what they do to be seemed right?
That is when my thesis coming in place. Which basically means that if the unjustifiable war can be justified then why can’t terrorism?
Many people don't know about the terrorists under the media. We see the video tape of how many people a suicide bomber have killed. But we never see the tape of how many Iraq people have been killed by American troops or the method they use to make a terrorist come out from its hiding spot which is throwing a chemical which will burn right into your bones when the powder land on you, isn't that crucial?
Another thought is about revolution. don't we all have to right to revolute when our government is not doing a good job. I believe we should. So if the PLQ want to be independent, they are justified for what they have done.
One more thought that is in my mind is: are there two kinds of terrorists?
One is the freedom fighter which is like George Washington the other one is like KKK which I believe is fighting to take away the equality of human beings.
I think I didn't make that much sense but just try to understand what I said and maybe give your opinions or advises
Thankx
J.J said:
Well, J.J., your first problem as I see it is making a clear determination as to who (how many, what nation, what group, what percentage, how voted, how polled, etc) is to make the judgement as to "just". I.e., is it a "just war" if only the citizens of one nation call it "just"? Or is a "just war" one for which every person on Earth must agree that it's "just"?
See? Who is making that determination? You? Me? A thousand people? Anyone can call anything "just", but that doesn't make it "just", does it?
"..a last resort" ....who decides that it's a last resort or not? And you say that all non-violent means should be exhausted, but what if many don't want to waste their time with some or all of those "non-violent" means? I.e., they "know" that they won't work.
"A just war can only be fought to redress a genuine wrong suffered." And just who makes the determination of what's "wrong" or "suffering"?
"A war can be just only if there is reasonable chance of success." And who makes that determination of success?
"The ultimate goal must be to establish peace." Well, peace might come about if one group totally destroys and annihilates their "enemy" ...so is that what you'd call "peace"?
"The violence in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States cannot justly use unnecessary force." And who makes that determination? And more to the point, who enforces that rule?
"Weapons used must discriminate between civilians and combatants." what if they were the same clothes and markings? How does one determine "civilian" versus combatant? Is the "civilian" a non-combatant if he provides housing, weapons, ammo and food to the combatant? Is the "civilian" a non-combatant even if he helps manufacture weapons, guns and fuel to the combatants?
I think you should give this some more thought, taking into account the concept of "How and who makes the determinations" in your list. And, if Joe says that it's justified, and Mike say it isn't, who decides who is right? And what if Joe/Mike don't like the determination? (I.e., if Hamas says killing is justified, but you don't, how are you going to stop Hamas from killing Israelis?)
Baron Max
Hey Max
I totally understand what you are saying. But i still not clear about some thing.
First of all I had the same thought as you when i started to write this essay. I read the title again and again, and i understand this one thing. The title is " can terrorism ever be justified?" So we are already asume terrorism is bad and are not justified now as in our society. Also the reason i put out Just war theory which is not by me but by Saint Augustine is to show how hard to fight a just war; which also proves my point that just war will never likely happen thus the act of terrorism should be justified. Also i think the purpose of this essay and my thesis is to let people realize that terrorism are not unjustified and are not the bad guys. I believe Terrorism is just another word to make the "terrorists' looks bad. For example long time ago we use to use the work trader to describe someone when they have betrade their country, and it is a bad word. When you hear someone is a trader your thought or your image about him becomes dark. For example if Bush wants to attack iraq he then can use the word terrorists on the iraq soldiers or who ever against him which seems like he is taking a evil organized group out of our society, but it is really invating Iraq when you look at the situation in another way.
My point is that even though america and what they did might seem justified for some people but terrorist is not the one that should be blamed for.
Also when 911 happened, Bush started to blame terrorists and how they are bad to attack his country. but from this reaserch online shows that the terrrosit groups send planty of warning before the attack. We cannot prove if Bush let the 911 happened on purposely to create a reason for attack iraq, but we can realize that no one really blamed him for the failier to protect his country after he confused us with the statement of terrorism. You are right on the idea of no one can really determines what statement is right or if killing is wrong or not, but i believe that there is morals in us and i believe the majority of the people or the society believes we should not be racist, even though we did long time ago but as you can see some thing that is morally wrong will never go far, thus we realize our mistake on discrimination against black people and changed our mistaken mind. what am i trying to get is that i agree with you that we should not agree on what other people say or what the government force you to do, you can disagree with the law or our government but since we are lving in a society we will have to fellow certain rules that are made up by the society even though if you think the rules are wrong. If you really don't agree with the rules then revolution comes in place, and if your thought is better than the governement on certain things then people will follow your lead thus a reavolution will be success. Do you think you are justified for not agreeing with the goverment? If you think it is then you agree with my opinion, cause think as if the terrorists donnot agree with the govenment, but for their thought and their effort to chance the society is justified because for what america did seems justifed.
J.J
More disscusion please this is fun!
I totally understand what you are saying. But i still not clear about some thing.
First of all I had the same thought as you when i started to write this essay. I read the title again and again, and i understand this one thing. The title is " can terrorism ever be justified?" So we are already asume terrorism is bad and are not justified now as in our society. Also the reason i put out Just war theory which is not by me but by Saint Augustine is to show how hard to fight a just war; which also proves my point that just war will never likely happen thus the act of terrorism should be justified. Also i think the purpose of this essay and my thesis is to let people realize that terrorism are not unjustified and are not the bad guys. I believe Terrorism is just another word to make the "terrorists' looks bad. For example long time ago we use to use the work trader to describe someone when they have betrade their country, and it is a bad word. When you hear someone is a trader your thought or your image about him becomes dark. For example if Bush wants to attack iraq he then can use the word terrorists on the iraq soldiers or who ever against him which seems like he is taking a evil organized group out of our society, but it is really invating Iraq when you look at the situation in another way.
My point is that even though america and what they did might seem justified for some people but terrorist is not the one that should be blamed for.
Also when 911 happened, Bush started to blame terrorists and how they are bad to attack his country. but from this reaserch online shows that the terrrosit groups send planty of warning before the attack. We cannot prove if Bush let the 911 happened on purposely to create a reason for attack iraq, but we can realize that no one really blamed him for the failier to protect his country after he confused us with the statement of terrorism. You are right on the idea of no one can really determines what statement is right or if killing is wrong or not, but i believe that there is morals in us and i believe the majority of the people or the society believes we should not be racist, even though we did long time ago but as you can see some thing that is morally wrong will never go far, thus we realize our mistake on discrimination against black people and changed our mistaken mind. what am i trying to get is that i agree with you that we should not agree on what other people say or what the government force you to do, you can disagree with the law or our government but since we are lving in a society we will have to fellow certain rules that are made up by the society even though if you think the rules are wrong. If you really don't agree with the rules then revolution comes in place, and if your thought is better than the governement on certain things then people will follow your lead thus a reavolution will be success. Do you think you are justified for not agreeing with the goverment? If you think it is then you agree with my opinion, cause think as if the terrorists donnot agree with the govenment, but for their thought and their effort to chance the society is justified because for what america did seems justifed.
J.J
More disscusion please this is fun!
Sorry read this one cause that one i didn't do the spelling check
Hey Max
I totally understand what you are saying. But I still not clear about some thing.
First of all I had the same thought as you when I started to write this essay. I read the title again and again, and I understand this one thing. The title is “can terrorism ever be justified?" So we are already assumes terrorism is bad and are not justified now as in our society. Also the reason I put out Just war theory which is not by me but by Saint Augustine is to show how hard to fight a just war; which also proves my point that just war will never likely happen thus the act of terrorism should be justified. Also I think the purpose of this essay and my thesis is to let people realize that terrorism are not unjustified and are not the bad guys. I believe Terrorism is just another word to make the "terrorists' looks bad. For example long time ago we use to use the work trader to describe someone when they have betrayed their country, and it is a bad word. When you hear someone is a trader your thought or your image about him becomes dark. For example if Bush wants to attack Iraq he then can use the word terrorists on the Iraq soldiers or who ever against him which seems like he is taking a evil organized group out of our society, but it is really invading Iraq when you look at the situation in another way.
My point is that even though America and what they did might seem justified for some people but terrorist is not the one that should be blamed for.
Also when 911 happened, Bush started to blame terrorists and how they are bad to attack his country. But from this research online shows that the terrorist groups send plenty of warning before the attack. We cannot prove if Bush let the 911 happened on purposely to create a reason for attack Iraq, but we can realize that no one really blamed him for the failure to protect his country after he confused us with the statement of terrorism. You are right on the idea of no one can really determines what statement is right or if killing is wrong or not, but I believe that there is morals in us and I believe the majority of the people or the society believes we should not be racist, even though we did long time ago but as you can see some thing that is morally wrong will never go far, thus we realize our mistake on discrimination against black people and changed our mistaken mind. what am I trying to get is that I agree with you that we should not agree on what other people say or what the government force you to do, you can disagree with the law or our government but since we are living in a society we will have to fellow certain rules that are made up by the society even though if you think the rules are wrong. If you really don't agree with the rules then revolution comes in place, and if your thought is better than the government on certain things then people will follow your lead thus a revolution will be success. Do you think you are justified for not agreeing with the government? If you think it is then you agree with my opinion, cause think as if the terrorists don not agree with the government, but for their thought and their effort to chance the society is justified because for what America did seems justified.
J.J
More discussion please this is fun!
Hey Max
I totally understand what you are saying. But I still not clear about some thing.
First of all I had the same thought as you when I started to write this essay. I read the title again and again, and I understand this one thing. The title is “can terrorism ever be justified?" So we are already assumes terrorism is bad and are not justified now as in our society. Also the reason I put out Just war theory which is not by me but by Saint Augustine is to show how hard to fight a just war; which also proves my point that just war will never likely happen thus the act of terrorism should be justified. Also I think the purpose of this essay and my thesis is to let people realize that terrorism are not unjustified and are not the bad guys. I believe Terrorism is just another word to make the "terrorists' looks bad. For example long time ago we use to use the work trader to describe someone when they have betrayed their country, and it is a bad word. When you hear someone is a trader your thought or your image about him becomes dark. For example if Bush wants to attack Iraq he then can use the word terrorists on the Iraq soldiers or who ever against him which seems like he is taking a evil organized group out of our society, but it is really invading Iraq when you look at the situation in another way.
My point is that even though America and what they did might seem justified for some people but terrorist is not the one that should be blamed for.
Also when 911 happened, Bush started to blame terrorists and how they are bad to attack his country. But from this research online shows that the terrorist groups send plenty of warning before the attack. We cannot prove if Bush let the 911 happened on purposely to create a reason for attack Iraq, but we can realize that no one really blamed him for the failure to protect his country after he confused us with the statement of terrorism. You are right on the idea of no one can really determines what statement is right or if killing is wrong or not, but I believe that there is morals in us and I believe the majority of the people or the society believes we should not be racist, even though we did long time ago but as you can see some thing that is morally wrong will never go far, thus we realize our mistake on discrimination against black people and changed our mistaken mind. what am I trying to get is that I agree with you that we should not agree on what other people say or what the government force you to do, you can disagree with the law or our government but since we are living in a society we will have to fellow certain rules that are made up by the society even though if you think the rules are wrong. If you really don't agree with the rules then revolution comes in place, and if your thought is better than the government on certain things then people will follow your lead thus a revolution will be success. Do you think you are justified for not agreeing with the government? If you think it is then you agree with my opinion, cause think as if the terrorists don not agree with the government, but for their thought and their effort to chance the society is justified because for what America did seems justified.
J.J
More discussion please this is fun!
dragoste_lumina
Registered Member
So....the question is, 'Is terrorism ever justified?' I understand that some of you may not be God-fearing people, so Im sorry if I offend you in anyway, I do not mean to.
It is not up to us to do justice; that is for God to do. He will justify everyone at the end of time. Revenge and such things like it are evil, if used in the wrong sense. People are always trying to get back at each other: that is why the world isn't fully peaceful. If people would stop fighting, and stop seeking revenge, justice wouldn't matter. But even so, it is not for us to do the justifying; in the end, God will. I know that if you do not understand Christianity, this will seem a bit odd. Does anyone here know the principle of Double effect? It's a very interesting thing to disscuse, especially on this topic... ^.~
It is not up to us to do justice; that is for God to do. He will justify everyone at the end of time. Revenge and such things like it are evil, if used in the wrong sense. People are always trying to get back at each other: that is why the world isn't fully peaceful. If people would stop fighting, and stop seeking revenge, justice wouldn't matter. But even so, it is not for us to do the justifying; in the end, God will. I know that if you do not understand Christianity, this will seem a bit odd. Does anyone here know the principle of Double effect? It's a very interesting thing to disscuse, especially on this topic... ^.~
J.J said:
I don't think you proved a damned thing! Read my post, answer my specific questions, then perhaps you'll have a better understanding of the issue (and of your poor attempt to prove anything).
Please, read my post, answer my questions. Then perhaps we can continue the discussion.
Baron Max
i don't know baron, all out war is not going to happpenBaron Max said:
not anything like ww2. but we do need some way to keep our poulation in check
i would prfer natural disasters myself but can we wait for them to happen
the only choice i see is minor battles here and there
in order to have that we need some sort of excuse vis terrorist
leopold99 said:
Where did I say anything about that? I'm not sure what ye're talking about with regard to the topic ..."Is Terrorism Ever Justified?"
leopold99 said:
I agree, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic of this thread, does it?
The problem, as I see it, is when one says that something is "justified", just saying it can't make it so. The problem is just WHO is making the determination as to what's "justified" or not? Or how many people must agree? I mean, do we/should we have an international board to make the determination of the justifications for wars, conflicts, arguments, etc? And even if we did, surely not everyone would agree ...so what then?
Baron Max
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorismBaron Max said:
leopold99 said:
I hope you are acqainted with the concept of babyboom. After a war men return with the intention to procreate.
See for instance the population increase in many countries after WW2.
So you can have minor battles but please make sure you lose them.
Max
Since you really want me to make you realize what you don't get, then i'll tell you.
You Are Bull Shitting!
First of all you keeps on asking me who determines that one is justifed or what is justified, Well let me tell you that politics are not as easy as what you think it is. It is not a yes or no answer or good and bad answer to determine things. Which is why this argument is so tough. If you agueing from a kid's point of view then you will get to no where. (But if you are a kid then is ok)
First of all, you have to understand the topic and the question. The question is asking " Can terrorism ever be justified". The point of the eassy is not to ague that terrorism is justified and is the right thing to do or terrorism is not justified and is not the right thing to do. It's point is to let other people see the situation within a different perspective from your opinion. Some people might agree with you and some might not. But it is the majority of the people that counts, cause we live in a society. You also have to understand that no one can determine what is justified when there are still people like you that keeps on argueing what if I dis agree? It's ok to disagree but you got to argue within a philosophical condition or envirment. I got really pissed after you aWell you have to understand that we are living in a society. You even mentioned yourself
"Well, J.J., your first problem as I see it is making a clear determination as to who (how many, what nation, what group, what percentage, how voted, how polled, etc) is to make the judgement as to "just". I.e., is it a "just war" if only the citizens of one nation call it "just"? Or is a "just war" one for which every person on Earth must agree that it's "just"?"
I didn't have a problem with who determines to be justified but it is you who cannot let go of that endless none sence. I will tell you that you determines what is justified yourself. There is no point argueing who is going to determine what is just when majority of people believe murder is wrong. What is the point to argue anyways? How about you give me an answer to determine who should say what is right or wrong. And I'll tell you won't have a answer, but simply choose a way to determine what is just and then i will play your usuall role which is what if i disagree, and i think you will then say too bad. So please don't make fun of yourself by typing abunch of none sence on this such tough and deep question. The way you tries to diss other people shows that you are not trying to argue to find the true knowledege but simply trying to win like a kid. I don't really want to make this online arguement to go wrong or just simply becomes a battle to see we has the better diss. So if you talk politly then i will talk to you, but if you just was to be a dick head then... what can i say just fuck yourself!
Have a nince day! To other people who respect me i respect yall!
Since you really want me to make you realize what you don't get, then i'll tell you.
You Are Bull Shitting!
First of all you keeps on asking me who determines that one is justifed or what is justified, Well let me tell you that politics are not as easy as what you think it is. It is not a yes or no answer or good and bad answer to determine things. Which is why this argument is so tough. If you agueing from a kid's point of view then you will get to no where. (But if you are a kid then is ok)
First of all, you have to understand the topic and the question. The question is asking " Can terrorism ever be justified". The point of the eassy is not to ague that terrorism is justified and is the right thing to do or terrorism is not justified and is not the right thing to do. It's point is to let other people see the situation within a different perspective from your opinion. Some people might agree with you and some might not. But it is the majority of the people that counts, cause we live in a society. You also have to understand that no one can determine what is justified when there are still people like you that keeps on argueing what if I dis agree? It's ok to disagree but you got to argue within a philosophical condition or envirment. I got really pissed after you aWell you have to understand that we are living in a society. You even mentioned yourself
"Well, J.J., your first problem as I see it is making a clear determination as to who (how many, what nation, what group, what percentage, how voted, how polled, etc) is to make the judgement as to "just". I.e., is it a "just war" if only the citizens of one nation call it "just"? Or is a "just war" one for which every person on Earth must agree that it's "just"?"
I didn't have a problem with who determines to be justified but it is you who cannot let go of that endless none sence. I will tell you that you determines what is justified yourself. There is no point argueing who is going to determine what is just when majority of people believe murder is wrong. What is the point to argue anyways? How about you give me an answer to determine who should say what is right or wrong. And I'll tell you won't have a answer, but simply choose a way to determine what is just and then i will play your usuall role which is what if i disagree, and i think you will then say too bad. So please don't make fun of yourself by typing abunch of none sence on this such tough and deep question. The way you tries to diss other people shows that you are not trying to argue to find the true knowledege but simply trying to win like a kid. I don't really want to make this online arguement to go wrong or just simply becomes a battle to see we has the better diss. So if you talk politly then i will talk to you, but if you just was to be a dick head then... what can i say just fuck yourself!
Have a nince day! To other people who respect me i respect yall!
Justified to whom?
Of course it is justified in the eyes of those who undertake it, or they wouldn't. Well, or they simply don't care if it is or isn't. Of course is most likely is NEVER justified in the eyes of those who are hurt by it.
There is no "justified" without reference to who is doing the justifying.
And it's tough to judge someone else's "justification" without relating to why they might reach the conclusion that it is, which is compounded by the fact that if they're willing to go killing civilians to make a point, they're probably not particularly rational - even if they once were. Of course they might be... and so desperate that I could relate to how they justified their terrorism, but that still doesn't mean I'd think it justified unless I was the one who was that desperate, and then it's a stupid question. Obviously if I'm willing to kill you over whatever, I either feel justified in doing so, or justification simply doesn't matter to me.
Of course it is justified in the eyes of those who undertake it, or they wouldn't. Well, or they simply don't care if it is or isn't. Of course is most likely is NEVER justified in the eyes of those who are hurt by it.
There is no "justified" without reference to who is doing the justifying.
And it's tough to judge someone else's "justification" without relating to why they might reach the conclusion that it is, which is compounded by the fact that if they're willing to go killing civilians to make a point, they're probably not particularly rational - even if they once were. Of course they might be... and so desperate that I could relate to how they justified their terrorism, but that still doesn't mean I'd think it justified unless I was the one who was that desperate, and then it's a stupid question. Obviously if I'm willing to kill you over whatever, I either feel justified in doing so, or justification simply doesn't matter to me.
J.J said:
If it's only the majority that counts, then the American War for Independence would never have been fought and won.
J.J said:
Ye're right ...I'm sorry for making this such a difficult topic. From now on, I'll just agree with whatever opinion you have, then everything will be fine.
Baron Max
Hey wesmorris you've raised a great question. It made me think more and deeper about the question and the situation. I think that you said "Of course is most likely is NEVER justified in the eyes of those who are hurt by it." But I think in this situation we are not looking at justifying as to be just emotionally Of course the family that lost their son or relative from a suicide bomb will never justified or forgive for what the terrorist have done. My question is what about the Iraq citizens that got killed by American soldiers? I know that I might never change someone's view towards this question, but it is my job to point out that those terrorists are not "bad or evil". For what the American soldiers have done to their country don't they have the right to defense or attack back? I think the real question for "can terrorism ever be justified' is do terrorist have to right to do what they have done when their enemy is doing the same to them but they got the bad name “terrorists”.
J.J said:
That was never your question before now! The Iraqi issue is a specific issue, and not about terrorism or about justifying it. I can see that ye're just one of many others who feel the need to spout off your sanctimonious and righteous bullshit about the War in Iraq.
J.J said:
Your job?? And how much are you being paid to spout that line of idealistic bullshit? And more to the point, just who the fuck are you to tell me which terrorist is bad and which is good??
I can see now that ye're just another of a long line of America-Haters vying for your few seconds in the spotlight.
Baron Max